Arun Haribhau Koli v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date:

2025.10.03 10:43:47 +0530 GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.19520 OF 2024 Arun Haribhau Koli ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents ---- Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner. Mrs. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. ---- CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

This matter was heard for some time on 30th September, 2025. An overnight pass over was granted.

2.

Besides raising a few issues, the Petitioner has primarily raised an objection that the person who conducted the Vigilance Cell inquiry, was also a part of the three Members Committee who dealt with his claim for seeking a validity certificate for Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe category.

3.

The learned AGP has received a communication dated 30th September, 2025 from the Law Officer of the Committee, Pune Division, indicating that the contention of the Petitioner is true. The photostat copy of the said communication is taken on record and marked as ' X ' for identification. In view of the same, the learned AGP is instructed to inform the Court that the impugned order could be set aside and the matter could be remitted to the Committee. 4.

In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 12th July, 2024 is quashed and set aside and the Petitioner's proposal is remitted to the same Committee to be conducted from the stage of the hearing on the Vigilance Cell report.

5.

We make it clear that the Committee will have to be reconstituted to deal with the Petitioner's proposal by ensuring that the person, who conducted the Vigilance Cell inquiry, would not be a part of the Committee. Moreover, after the Committee is reconstituted, a notice of hearing be issued to the Petitioner on the same address mentioned in the cause title of the Petition. 15 days'

notice for hearing on the Vigilance Cell report would be extended to the Petitioner, and after the hearing is concluded, a reasoned order would be passed by the Committee within 45 days, thereafter. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)