JUDGMENT
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Gilda, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. B. Patil, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
2. The Writ Petition is directed against the order, dated 3rd October, 2001, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadeo, Scheduled Tribe, came to be invalidated.
3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order, apart from the other grounds, mainly on the ground that the Police Vigilance Cell, in violation of the direction given by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case, submitted its report to the respondent No. 2 Committee. It is contended that the Research Officer did not accompany the Police Officer at the time of conducting enquiry into the caste claim of the petitioner. It is only the Police Officer, who had enquired into the matter and, therefore, the same is violative of the directions of the Apex Court. Similarly, the next ground on which the impugned order is challenged is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioner after a copy of the Report of Police Vigilance Cell was served on the petitioner and before passing of the impugned order. It is contended that the petitioner, time and again, requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee to supply the documents and grant an opportunity of hearing. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to do so and finally without hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order, dated 3.10.2001, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the impugned order is bad in law.
4. The learned Counsel tried to assail the impugned order on the ground of jurisdiction also, and contended that the Additional Collector, before whom the application under Section 16, read with Section 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act is pending, is the only Competent Authority to refer the matter of the petitioner for the purposes of verification of the caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Since in the present case, the caste claim is not referred by the Additional Collector, who is seized of the above referred proceedings, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not justified in adjudicating the matter in respect of the caste of the petitioner and, therefore, the order is bad in law on this ground.
5. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, on the other hand, contended that the Research Officer is not required to do field investigation along with the Police Officer, who conducts home enquiry in respect of the caste claim. It is contended that the Research Officer is required to look into the documents collected by the Police Vigilance Cell during the course of home enquiry and is required to consider them at that stage. In the instant case, the same procedure has been followed and, therefore, the same is according to law. It is further contended that this issue has also been considered by this Court in Ku. Chhaya Namdeorao Bolekar v. State Writ Petition No. 1683 of 2000.
6. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel, further contended that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to participate in the enquiry and put forth her say before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It is contended that a copy of the report of Police Vigilance Cell was supplied to the petitioner vide letter, dated 26.6.2001 and she was informed to submit her say within fifteen days. The petitioner was called for hearing on 12.7.2001. However, the petitioner did not submit her reply, nor she attended the hearing, and sent a telegram and requested for next date for collecting papers. She was again called for personal hearing on 26.7.2001 by a letter, dated 1 7.7.2001, sent by Registered Post A. D. On this occasion also, the petitioner did not attend the hearing, nor submitted her explanation. It is further contended by the Counsel for the Committee that the petitioner was once again called for hearing on 13.8.2001 vide letter, dated 8.8.2001, However, the petitioner this time also informed that she was suffering from hypertension and asked for next date. In view of the request of the petitioner, time was granted and she was called for hearing on 31.8.2001 by Registered Post A.D. letter, dated 18.8.2001. However, the petitioner informed vide communication, dated 30.8.2001, that she is not physically and mentally prepared to appear in the proceedings and requested for further time. It is further contended that taking into consideration the above referred opportunities granted by the Committee to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not given opportunity to put forth her say before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
7. Mr. Patil contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has conducted enquiry through Police Vigilance Cell and found that the caste of the petitioner’s close relative, namely Deorao, is shown as “Koli” and the caste of her father, namely Madhao Keshaorao Phukat, is shown as “Suryawanshi Koli”. These entries are, dated 19.11.1925 and 3.8.1955 respectively. It is contended that in view of the directions given by the Apex Court in Madhwi Patil’s case, the petitioner was issued a communication, dated 8.8.2001, inter alia, calling the petitioner to give her say in regard to the aforesaid entries found in respect of her relative and father. However, the petitioner did not file any say in this regard and, therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ultimately had to place reliance on these documents in order to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, lastly contended that in view of the Government Resolution, dated 9.9.1999, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to verify the caste claim of the petitioner or the persons elected against reserved seats in elections to Local Authorities. It is further contended that in the instant case the District Collector, Amravati, vide communication, dated 12.3.2001, has referred the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and accordingly the Caste Scrutiny Committee has conducted proceedings and passed the impugned order. It is contended that vide Government Resolution, dated 9.9.1999, the Collector has to refer the caste claim of a candidate elected against any reserved seat in the elections to Local Authorities. It is, therefore, con tended that in view of the above referred Government Resolution, the Additional Collector, in the instant case, was justified in referring the case to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for caste verification and, therefore, this is consistent with the procedure in this regard.
9. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel.
10. In the instant case, as far as the first contention of the petitioner that the Research Officer was not associated with the field investigation along with Police Officer who was conducting home enquiry is concerned, the same is not proper. The Research Officer is not required to conduct field investigation along with Police Officer. However, he is only required to look into the documents and the evidence collected by the Police Vigilance Cell during the course of home enquiry which has been done in this case. In that view of the matter, the first contention, which was canvassed by the learned Counsel in this regard is misconceived and devoid of substance and cannot be accepted and is rejected.
11. As far as the second contention in respect of opportunity of being heard is concerned, the facts, which were placed on record, as referred to hereinabove, by the learned Counsel in the submissions filed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, would show that the petitioner was served with a copy of the Report of Police Vigilance Cell on 26.6.2001 and thereafter she was called for hearing on 12.7.2001, 26.7.2001, 13.8.2001 and 31.8.2001. However, on all these dates, the petitioner did not appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on one pretext or the other and only kept on making requests to adjourn the matter on flimsy grounds. The concept of principles of natural justice needs to be understood in its right perspective. The opportunity, which is contemplated, is the fair opportunity of being heard, and not that the person concerned is entitled to the same in perpetuity. In the instant case, the petitioner, in my opinion, was given more than sufficient opportunities to put forth her say against the report submitted by the Police Vigilance Cell as well as other documents which were relied on by the Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. However, the petitioner herself failed to avail the said opportunity which was granted to her and, therefore, the petitioner now cannot make a grievance that the order is violative of principles of natural justice. In the facts of the present case, the procedure adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in my opinion, in this regard, is perfectly in consonance with the doctrine of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel in this regard is also misconceived and cannot be sustained in law.
12. Thirdly as far as the merits of the matter are concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee placed reliance on the documents pertaining to the years 1925 and 1955 in respect of Mr. Deorao, who is a close relative of the petitioner wherein the caste is shown as “Koli” and Mr. Madhao Keshaorao Phukat, the father of the petitioner, wherein the caste is shown as “Suryawanshi Koli”. In both these documents, the caste is not shown as Mahadeo Koli. Though the petitioner was granted opportunity to put forth her say in this regard, she failed to do so and, therefore, the reliance, which is placed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on these documents for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner, in my opinion, is justified.
13. Lastly, as far as the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Caste Scrutiny Committee does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the caste claim of the petitioner since the same was not referred by the Additional Collector, who is seized of the matter pertaining to application under Sections 16 and 33 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act is concerned, I am unable to agree with the same, particularly in view of the Government Resolution, dated 9.9.1999, which empowers the Caste Scrutiny Committee to verily the caste claims of the persons elected against reserved seats in elections to Local Authorities. In the instant case, the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee by the District Collector, Amravati, and in view of the above referred facts, in my opinion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee does have jurisdiction to entertain the caste claim of the petitioner and, therefore, the contention in this regard is misconceived and the same is rejected. The impugned order docs not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Writ Petition is misconceived, devoid of substance and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
