Judgment: (Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the scrutiny committee, dated 29-30.12.2014 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to the East Indian Christian Community. The petitioner also challenges the consequential order disqualifying the petitioner as the Corporator of the Thane Municipal Corporation. Few facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are stated thus:

The petitioner and the respondent no.5 contested the election to the Municipal Corporation, Thane on a post reserved for the other backward classes. The petitioner claims to belong to East Indian Christian Community, which falls in the other backward classes. The caste claim of the petitioner was sent to the respondent no.2-scrutiny committee for verification and the scrutiny committee on a consideration of the material on record, validated the caste claim of the petitioner. The respondent no.5, who had also contested the election and was defeated, challenged the order of the scrutiny committee by filing a writ petition. The said writ petition was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision on merits. The scrutiny committee, by the impugned order dated 30.12.2014 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The said order, as also the consequential order of the Corporation, disqualifying the petitioner, has been impugned in the present petition.

Shri Sakhare, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter-alia challenges the order of the scrutiny committee on the ground that the scrutiny committee had not issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as required by the provisions of Rule 17(11) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (herein after referred to, as the Rules of 2012 for the sake of brevity). It is submitted that the vigilance enquiry was conducted after the remand of the matter on 17.11.2014 and the report of the vigilance cell dated 17.11.2014 supported the caste claim of the petitioner. It is stated that on 3.12.2014, an application was made by the respondent no.5-complainant for consideration of some additional documents and the scrutiny committee allowed the said application and the vigilance cell conducted a fresh enquiry and submitted the second report dated 6.12.2014. It is stated that after the vigilance cell submitted the second report dated 6.12.2014, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, as required by the provisions of Rule 17(11) of the Rules of 2012. It is submitted that after the petitioner received the report dated 6.12.2014, the petitioner had sought permission to cross-examine the principal and the clerk of the concerned school as the statement of the principal dated 4.12.2014 was considered by the vigilance cell while preparing the report dated 6.12.2014. It is stated that the scrutiny committee did not grant an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the principal, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that though there are other grounds for challenging the order of the scrutiny committee, the petitioner rests his case on the two aforesaid submissions as the order is liable to be set aside in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice.

Shri Mali, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the scrutiny committee submitted that the scrutiny committee was justified in invalidating the claim of the petitioner. It is, however, admitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of instructions and the original record of the proceedings that no show-cause notice, as required by the provisions of Rule 17(11) of the Rules of 2012 was issued to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document