-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE APPELLATE APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.315 OF 2008 NO.315 OF 2008 NO.315 OF 2008 Balasaheb @ Balkrishna S.Patil ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr G.S. Godbole with Mr Nitin Mulye for Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, 8 and 9. Mr J. Shekhar i/b M/s J. Shekhar and Co. for Respondent No.10. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 23RD APRIL 2008. -2- P.C. :- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny committee dated 14th August 2007 holding that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner showing that he belongs to ’Kunbi’, which is OBC caste, is not valid. The petitioner in this petition also challenges the order passed by the commissioner, Pune Division, Pune declaring the seat to which the petitioner was elected on Zilla Parishad, Sangli to be vacant in view of the order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is common ground that if the order of the Scrutiny Committee is set aside, the order of the Commissioner declaring the seat to which the petitioner has been elected is vacant also will have to be set aside. Admitted position is that as required by the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and ors. v/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., reported in 1994(6) SCC 241, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had called for a report of the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report, the report was in favour of the petitioner. It -3- is also an admitted position that though the Vigilance Cell’s report was in favour of the petitioner, without supplying copy thereof and without giving her notice to show cause why the Committee should not disregard the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Committee made an order holding the caste certificate of the petitioner invalid. This finding is contrary to the report of the Vigilance Cell. Similar situation has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in two judgments, one in the case of Yuvraj D. Patil v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. (writ petition No.5874 of 2007) decided on 27th February 2008 and the other in the case of Chandrakant N. Bathe v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. (writ petition No.6188 of 2007) decided on 5th March 2008 and this Court, on the ground that the order has been made by the Scrutiny Committee disregarding the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil and ors. (supra), has set aside the order of the Committee and remitted back the same. In our opinion, similar course of action will have to be followed in this case. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3. The order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 14th August 2007 challenged in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for hearing and decision in accordance with law. The -4- Scrutiny Committee shall pass final order as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from the date on which writ of this order is received by the Scrutiny Committee. The order passed by the Commissioner, Pune dated 25th October 2007, copy of which is at Exh.’Q’ to the petition is also set aside. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( N.D. DESHPANDE J.)