DNYANESHWARI KAMLAKAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the order dated 31st March, 2005 passed by the scrutiny committee on the ground that the committee proceeded to dispose of the matter relating to the caste verification of the petitioner without affording proper opportunity of personal hearing being given to the petitioner, and thereby acted illegally and particularly in contravention of the provisions of the Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes ( Regulations of Issuance and Verification of ) Certificate Rules, 2003, hereinafter called as "the said Rules".

(3.) While elaborating the case of the petitioner, the learned advocate for the petitioner drawing our attention to the Rule 12 of the said Rules and in particular Sub-rule (9) submitted that plain reading of the impugned order would disclose that the scrutiny committee did not comply with the mandate of the said rules, as far as it relates to the opportunity to the concerned person for personal hearing before the scrutiny committee. The learned AGP on the other hand submitted that the findings arrived at by the scrutiny committee in the impugned order apparently disclose that sufficient opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. However, she failed to avail the same, and therefore, the committee cannot be blamed of having not complied with the procedure relating to the personal hearing to be given to the claimant.