1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 2281 OF 2007 Kerba s/o. Narhari Surwase, age 39 years, occ. service, R/o. Dighol (Deshmukh), Tq. Renapur, dist Latur, presently residing at Vaijapur, district Aurangabad. - - - Petitioner versus Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Kasmira Sadan, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad. - - - - - Respondent Shri S.M. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R. P. Phatke, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 22nd September 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 11-4-2007 by which claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. 2 3. From the record it is clear that the Vigilance Cell had conducted earlier an inquiry and report pertaining to that inquiry was submitted to the respondent on 5-2-2009. However, it appears that the respondent Committee did not agree with the said report and at the stage of hearing decided to direct Vigilance Cell to conduct fresh inquiry. It is the contention of the petitioner that after second report was submitted to the Committee, the petitioner has not been given either a copy of the said report or an opportunity to read the contents of the said report. A statement to that effect has been categorically made in para 5 of the petition. 4. No reply is filed on behalf of the respondent Committee. However, we had called original file and upon perusal of the original file, it can clearly be seen that the second report of the Vigilance Cell has not been considered by the respondent Committee. 5. In that view of the matter, petition deserves to be allowed on the short ground of non compliance of principles of natural justice. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remanded back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for 3 considering the claim of the petitioner afresh after giving him an opportunity to read the contents in the second vigilance report. 7. The petitioner shall remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 12th October 2009, on which date, the respondent Scrutiny Committee shall furnish the petitioner with the copy of the second vigilance report. After a copy is furnished to the petitioner, the Respondent Scrutiny Committee shall give an opportunity to the petitioner to give his explanation to the said report. The claim of the petitioner shall be reconsidered after considering the explanation given by the petitioner to the second vigilance report and further submissions made by him in that behalf. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp228107