SAPREMSING MADHAVRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the basic requirement 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 is not followed. No show cause notice and/or mandatory notice issued and/or served. The learned AGP appearing for the Respondent, on instructions of the law officer Mr. Milind Patil, makes statement and confirmed the said position, after verifying the record of the Petitioner. However, submission is made that the Petitioner did file reply to the Vigilance Committee report. This, in our view, in no way sufficient, not to issue show cause notice as contemplated. It is not the case of the Department that they are satisfied with the Vigilance Committee report and the reply so filed by the Petitioner. The purpose of so called notice is to give opportunity to all the parties concerned so that after due deliberation and giving opportunity of all kind, final order for and/or against can be passed deciding the caste claim of the Petitioner. Therefore, as the basic show cause notice was not issued, the order so passed, in our view, is unsustainable and contrary to the law, apart from the principle of natural justice.

(3.) This Court in Writ Petition No.10570/2014 Harshalsing S. Patil v. State of Maharashtra, decided on 20.02.2015, in similar matter, has set aside such order for want of show cause notice. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the concerned Respondents to issue show cause notice in accordance with law.