(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 593 OF 2010 Vishwanath s/o. Gopinath Puri, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Abegaon, Taluka : Majalgaon, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary in the Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes & Special Backward Category Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Beed District, Beed. 4. The Tahsildar, Majalgaon Tahsil, Taluka : Majalgaon, District : Beed. (2) 5. The Grampanchyat at Ambegaon, Ambegaon, Taluka : Majalgaon, District : Beed, Through its Gramsevak. 6. The State Election Commissioner, Through its Secretary, Office of the State Election Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 7. Shri Sanjay Bansidharrao Shejul, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Ambegaon, Taluka : Majalgaon, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.6. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 25TH OCTOBER 2010 (3) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent nos.5 and 7 is passed, service of notice, upon rule, on the said respondents is waived. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent no.2 / Committee, dated 7th July 2009, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner, of belonging to "Gosavi", which is notified as Vimukta Jati-B. 4. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the order has been passed without there being an inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil & another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & others (AIR 1995 SC 1994), prior to passing an order by the Scrutiny Committee, it is necessary that the case of the concerned candidate is required to be inquired by the Vigilance Cell. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. (4) The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 / Committee, dated 7th July 2009, is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 / Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, and the observations made herein above. Needless to state, that the Committee shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp593