Sachin Shivaji Nikam v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

1 920-WP10723-19.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10723 OF 2019 Sachin Shivaji Nikam .. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Another .. Respondents Mr. R. S. Pawar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for Respondents-State. CORAM :

S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 29th AUGUST, 2019.

PER COURT:- 1.

Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel submits that the vigilance report is totally erroneous. The persons whose castes are shown as Hindu Koli in the report are not the relatives of the petitioner. The vigilance is conducted in a casual manner.

2.

We have heard the learned AGP.

3.

The petitioner has every right to file say to the vigilance report and put forth his ground. Naturally while delivering the judgment the committee is bound to consider the say filed by the petitioner, so also the relations of the parties.

4.

We cannot presume that the committee would not consider the say filed by the petitioner to the vigilance report.

2 920-WP10723-19.doc 5.

In the light of the above, it would be premature to entertain the petition at this stage. The committee shall endeavor to decide the validation proceedings expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (03) months.

6.

In case, the tribe claim of the petitioner is invalidated petitioner will have all the defences available to him.

7.

Writ Petition accordingly is disposed of. No costs. ( ANIL S. KILOR ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE P.S.B.