TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the scrutiny committee failed to follow the principle of natural justice, i.e., without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, the impugned order is passed. The learned counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that the scrutiny committee while passing impugned order has exceeded its power and when in fact there is no power vested with the scrutiny committee to recall its order granting validity certificate, the scrutiny committee misdirected itself and passed the impugned order. 3. Few facts giving rise to the petition can be summariesed as follows : Petitioner No.1 entered the services of State Forest Department and in the year 1992 was appointed as forest guard. The competent authority, I.e., the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded issued tribe certificates dated 17th June 2002 and 26th May 2003 in favour of the Petitioners certifying that they belong to "Mannerwarlu" schedule tribe. The Petitioners approached the scrutiny committee for validation of their tribe claims and on 19th November 2008 and 20th July 2007, claims of the respective Petitioners were validated. 4. It is submitted by the learned co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made by the scrutiny committee, in the application, it would be open for the committee to issue notices setting out grounds for taking up such of those matters for reconsideration. The scrutiny committee shall issue proper notices setting out the grounds and reasons which necessitate reconsideration of validation claims and after receiving replies from the concerned validity holders, the committee may reconsider the claims within parameters of law laid down by this Court in various judgments." 6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by this Court, said Jyoti Mupade approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing petition for special leave to appeal (C) No.9594 of 2013 and vide order dated 22nd February 2013, notices were issued by the Apex Court to the parties. The scrutiny committee passed the order dated 22nd August 2012 and issued notices to Petitioner No.1 dated 2nd April 2013 calling upon Petitioner No. 1 to appear before the Committee on 23rd April 2013. The said notice was received by Petitioner No.1 on 1st May 2013 through his department. It is submitted before this Court that Petitioner No.2 had not received any show cause notice from the office of Respondent No.1-scrutin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and real brother of Petitioner No.2, i.e., Devidas Balaji Mupade was invalidated by the scrutiny committee prior to initially granting the validity certificate in favour of these petitioners and both these petitioners have suppressed this material fact from the Committee. It is also submitted by the learned AGP that the Petitioners cannot take shield of the principle of natural justice in the backdrop of the fact that the Petitioners who were aware that the claim of Devidas Balaji Mupade was rejected by the scrutiny committee, suppressed this fact. . It is then submitted by the learned AGP that at the time of approaching the Scrutiny Committee for seeking validation of the claim, the claimant is required to submit a preformated application before the committee along with an affidavit; it is expected of the claimant to submit the real, relevant and necessary information to the committee for validation of the claim. Learned AGP submitted before us that while submitting the claim, the very material information that the tribe claim of nearest relatives of the Petitioners, namely, Devidas Balaji Mupade and Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade, were invalidated, is suppressed from the committee. Lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers, the other relatives of said Jyoti Mupade, namely, Sahebrao Laxmanrao Mupade, Rameshwar Laxman Mupade and Kerba Ganesh Mupade have obtained validity certificates and while submitting their claims for validation, there was suppression of material facts. Insofar as the Petitioners are concerned, the scrutiny committee in its order made a reference to the suppression of facts by these two petitioners in clauses (c) and (d) of the order. 15. Though Mr. Phatale, learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently submitted that the scrutiny committee rejected the tribe claim of the Petitioners on the ground of invalidation of caste claim of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade, the order also makes reference to the suppression of facts of invalidation of caste claim of Deviddas Balaji Mupade. Devidas Balaji Mupade is the real brother of Petitioner No.2-Savita Mupade and also the son of Petitioner No.1-Balaji Mupade. It is very interesting to note that the claim of Devidas Balaji Mupade was invalidated by the scrutiny committee by the order dated 24th July 2002. On the backdrop of relations between Devidas Balaji Mupade and Petitioner No.1-Balaji as well as Devidas and Petitioner No.2- Savita, it can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing but suppression of material fact. 18. On perusal of original file of Petitioner No.2-Savita, it is revealed that while submitting her claim before the respondent no.2-scrutiny committee, Petitioner No.2-Savita too maintains silence in respect of the information to be submitted in clauses 17(A) and 17(B). The claim of Petitioner No.2-Savita was submitted on 17th July 2006. Petitioner No. 2-Savita refers in her proforma application submitted to the scrutiny committee to Sahebrao Laxman Mupade, Gajanajn Shesherao Mupade and Vikas Suresh Mupade, as the validity holders. 19. It is also interesting to note that though Savita in support of her claim has filed affidavits of one Vikas Mupade, who is validity holder, maintains silence about Jyoti Mupade. It is also interesting to note that while submitting Form-E application, clause 16 refers to the information of other family members of the claimant who have taken education, such as father, uncle, brother, sister, etc., As stated above, brother of Savita, Devidas while prosecuting his education had approached the scrutiny committee for issuance of validity certificate and his claim was rejected and inspite of this fact, Petitioner No.....