ANIL KUMAR PARATE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dtd. 22/4/2016 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1018 of 2016 wherein the petitioner had challenged the show cause notice issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The allegations in this notice are that the Appellant does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The notice is very innocuous and all it requires the Appellant to do is to produce documents to show that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe. This notice was challenged in the writ petition and the Learned Single Judge held that the petition was premature because the Appellant had a right to show cause to the Caste Scrutiny Committee the he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and also to take any other ground which may be legally available to him under the law. This judgment of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the petition in limine is under challenge before us.

(2.) The main ground raised by Mr. Tiwari is that the Learned Single Judge has not considered one of the issues raised before him that the notice of enquiry having been issued almost 20 years after joining of the Appellant was highly belated and in this behalf the Appellant has relied upon a judgment passed by Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3701 of 2002 (Anil Basant Rao Sirpurkar v. State of Maharashtra).

(3.) At the outset, we may notice that the order passed by the Learned Single Judge is on Board, meaning thereby that it was oral order and passed in presence of Learned Counsel for the Appellant. In case, Counsel feels that any of his arguments or averments have not been discussed, he should have pointed out to the Learned Single Judge there and then and even thereafter he could have filed a review petition that one of his contentions has not been considered.