DINESH SHAMRAO BARAPATRE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 21-5-1999 of Caste Scrutiny Committee negativing the petitioners claim that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) THE only point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Police Vigilance Cell has failed to record the statement of any person as required by Supreme Court in the case of (Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane) 1995 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)690 : A. I. R. 1995 S. C. 94. In that judgment, particularly in paragraph 5, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: 5. Each directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other person who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the proforma. . . . . . . . . . . . "