JAICHANDRA DYANDEO TAYDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Puranik, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Mrs. Bhandarkar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 1. 8. 2003 passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "koli Mahadeo" (Scheduled Tribe ).

(3.) SHRI Mardikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is violative of principles of natural justice since petitioner was not given opportunity to put forth his say on the report of Police Vigilance Cell and objections raised by the petitioner were not considered. It is contended that during the course of home enquiry, Inspector, Vigilance Cell recorded' statements of two persons, namely, Shaligram and Samadhan. However, these two persons are not at all related to petitioner and, therefore, their statements could not have been relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to hold that petitioner does not belong to "koli Mahadeo". It is contended that para (8) of the impugned order shows that the respondent Caste scrutiny Committee has placed reliance on the statements of these persons and on the basis of the same, came to the conclusion that the above referred two persons are relatives of petitioner. It is submitted that the said finding is bad in law since petitioner is not given opportunity in this regard though he specifically objected before the Caste Scrutiny Committee that they are not related to the petitioner.