KAVITA NAGNATH MUDRALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 11-9-2001, which is produced at Exh.-L in the petition. By the impugned order, the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nashik, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to establish her tribe as belonging to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The Committee also held that the petitioner has not produced basic documents such as School record, birth record pertaining to her parents to establish her tribe claim.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that her parents and uncle were all illiterate and they have not gone to school at all. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given copy of the report of Vigilance Cell, which has been relied upon by the Committee. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Scrutiny Committee is otherwise, bad in law, as hearing was conducted by the Committee on 8-3-2001 and even though, hearing was completed on 8-3-2001 after six months the order has been received and decision dated 11 -9-2001 was communicated to the petitioner. It is the say of the petitioner that hearing was conducted by three members, out of which Mr. S.P. Bansode was the Deputy Director of respondent No. 2 and he left the charge in the month of June 2001. In spite of that, the order is passed on 11-9-2001. It is the say of the petitioner that since one of the members had already left the charge prior to 11-9-2001, either fresh hearing was required to be given to the petitioner as the member who had already left the charge in June 2001, could not be a party to the said decision dated 11-9-2001. The learned A.G.P., for the respondent - State submitted that so far as the report of the Vigilance Cell is concerned, as per the averments in the reply, the same was made available to the petitioner. However, the averments made in the petition that one of the member has left the charge in June 2001 and then order was passed on 11-9-2001, that fact has not been dealt with in the reply, nor the learned A.G.P., has any say in this behalf.

(3.) In our view, the dispute regarding giving copy of the Vigilance report to the petitioner is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has not produced any satisfactory evidence on record to show that the vigilance report was served upon the petitioner by Registered Post or by any other mode. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, when the matter was heard by three members of respondent No. 2, if one of the member had already retired or left the charge, subsequently no order could have been passed unless the matter is heard by validly constituted committed of three members. A person who has left the charge cannot pass the orders after three months, as these are quasi judicial proceedings. The order could have been passed by respondent No. 2 before one of the member left the charge or otherwise fresh hearing was required to be given to the petitioner. A person after leaving the charge becomes functous officio and he cannot be a party to the decision. The learned A.G.P., for the State is unable to give any reply on this aspect of the matter even though the point is taken in the petition.