Shivaji Nagnath Itlawar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 wp 374.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2018 Shivaji S/o nagnath Itlawar, Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The Scheduled Tribe Certificates Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad.

3.

The Collector, Kolhapur, Dist. Kolhapur.

.. Respondents Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for All Respondents. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :- .

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice of rule for all

2 wp 374.18 respondents. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

2.

Validation proceeding in respect of the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mannervarlu (Scheduled Tribe) is pending with the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee since 2013. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, same is not yet decided and the employer has issued notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to submit the validity certificate, else adverse action would be taken against the petitioner.

3.

It is not in the hands of a litigant to get the validation proceeding decided within a stipulated period. Of course, the petitioner has to co-operate in expeditious disposal of the validation proceeding.

4.

Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, we pass following order.

O R D E R

A.

The respondent No. 2/Committee shall decide the validation proceeding in respect of tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (09) months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

3 wp 374.18 B.

The petitioner shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of said proceeding. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 30.01.2018.

C.

The impugned notice issued by the employer/respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside.

D.

The respondent No. 3/employer shall not take any action against the petitioner only on the ground that validation proceeding is pending.

E.

Of course, the employer is at liberty to take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in validation proceeding.

F.

Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

Sd/- Sd/- [ARUN M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Jan. 17