Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 11 (BOM)

Pratik Sanjay Surwase v. State of Maharashtra

2021-01-04

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The tribe claim of the petitioner as Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe is invalidated. 2. Amongst the various submissions one of the submission made by Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior Advocate is that the committee relied upon the entries in the school record of some of the relatives of the petitioner pursuant to the vigilance report in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase. Petitioner was not provided with the copy of the said vigilance report. The petitioner did not get the opportunity to controvert the said documents. 3. The learned Senior Advocate submits that principles of natural justice are not adhered to. 4. The learned A.G.P. submits that the contra entries in respect of paternal relatives of the petitioner are writ large. The claim of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase, relative of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe is invalidated and the same is pending before this Court. There are other grounds also for invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner. 5. It appears from the submissions made that the committee has relied upon the vigilance report in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase while invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner was not served with the copy of the vigilance report conducted in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase and relied by the committee while invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that the vigilance conducted in the case of the petitioner does not refer to the documents relied by the committee while invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner. 6. The committee has relied on the following documents from the vigilance report of the Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase, the same is as under- 7. It appears that all these documents were not referred to in the vigilance report conducted in the case of the petitioner but were produced in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase. Naturally, the committee was required to give copy of the vigilance report relied by it and also the copies of the documents relied by it so as to give opportunity to the petitioner to answer the same. 8. In light of the above, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the committee. 9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated before the scrutiny committee. The petitioner shall appear before he scrutiny committee on 0 6.01.2021. 8. In light of the above, it would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the committee. 9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated before the scrutiny committee. The petitioner shall appear before he scrutiny committee on 0 6.01.2021. The petitioner is entitled to file additional documents, if, he so desires. The committee shall give the copy of the vigilance report conducted in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase to the petitioner along with documents therein. The petitioner may file reply to the said vigilance report conducted in case of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase. In case the petitioner files additional documents, the committee may conduct vigilance in case of the additional documents filed by the petitioner. The committee shall endeavour to decide the proceeding within a period of three (03) weeks from the date the petitioner files the additional documents and reply to the vigilance report of Shrikant Uttareshwar Surwase. 10. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. 11. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the civil application is also disposed of.