Advocates:
['S R BARLINGE', 'TELE ASHOK B', '', 'COPY SERVED ON G P', 'G P']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7548 OF 2006

*

Deelip S/o Govinda Sonawane,

Age 44 years,

Occupation : Service,

Clerk in the office of the

Chief Conservator of Forests

(Territorial), Dhule,

R/o Kanad Apartment,

Room No.9, Pramodnagar,

Sector 2, Deopur, Dhule,

Taluka and District Dhule. ... Petitioner.

Versus

1)

The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary,

Tribal Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2)

The Scheduled Tribe

Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nasik Division,

Nasik.

3)

The Deputy Conservator of

Forests, Jalgaon Division,

Jalgaon.

4)

The Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribe

Claims, Nandurbar. ... Respondents.

-------

2

Shri. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner.

Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader,

for respondents Nos.1 and 3.

Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondents

Nos.2 and 4.

-------

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL &

N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE: 22nd JUNE 2009

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.):

1)

Heard.

2)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

by consent of the learned counsel for the parties

the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3)

It is unfortunate that this matter is

required to be remanded for the second time to

the Scrutiny Committee. First time the matter

was remanded as per the oder passed in Writ

Petition No.4447 of 1995. This repeated remand of

3

the matter reflects otherwise on the functioning

of the quasi judicial body and consumes valuable

time of the Courts.

4)

The petitioner was interviewed by the

Committee on 17-9-2004, according to the

petitioner. According to the learned counsel

Shri. M.S. Deshmukh on petitioner’s request the

matter was adjourned as the petitioner wanted to

produce some documents on record. The learned

counsel Shri. S.R. Barlinge appearing for the

petitioner submits that with the Inward Clerk in

the office of the Committee the petitioner had

produced copies of 7/12 extract and two validity

certificates of his relations. But the Committee

while passing order on 19-6-2006 did not refer to

these documents. Instead, it was stated that no

such record was filed.

5)

This observation of the Committee

reflects non application of mind to the evidence

produced by the petitioner on record. It is

4

further surprising to note that the petitioner

was interviewed in the year 2004 but the

Committee preferred to pass final order after 2

years i.e. in the year 2006. We do not appreciate

this method of the functioning of the Committee.

After hearing the matter final orders would be

passed as early as possible, within a reasonable

time frame.

6)

We, therefore, are constrained to remand

this matter again to the Committee. The Committee

– respondent No.4 would hear the petitioner,

consider all the documents produced earlier by

the petitioner and thereafter pass final orders.

No further enquiry or production of evidence,

documents in any shape shall be permitted to be

produced on record.

7)

The order dated 19-8-2006 passed by the

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny committee

Nasik is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the respondent No.4 – The

5

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe

Claims Nandurbar. The petitioner shall appear

before the Nandurbar Committee on 26th June 2009

at 11.00 a.m. If the petitioner appears the

Committee shall dispose of the matter by passing

final orders strictly in accordance with law

within six weeks from 26-6-2009.

If the

petitioner fails to appear the Committee shall

pass order on the basis of available record

without adjourning the matter for the petitioner.

We have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the matter.

8)

Rule is made absolute in the above terms

with no o