: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2006 Yeshwant Narsappa Borati .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 3rd July, 2008. DATE : 3rd July, 2008. DATE : 3rd July, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the Scrutiny Committee. 2. The facts which are material and relevant are as under :- 3. The petitioner secured a certificate from the : 2 : Executive Magistrate, certifying that he belongs to "Lingayat Mali" caste which is Other Backward Class. That certificate was sent to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Committee passed an order holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Lingayat Mali" caste is not valid. That order was challenged in this Court by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.5512 of 2005. That petition came to be disposed off by order dated 22.9.2005. It is a short order. It reads as under:- "Rule. Heard forthwith. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has sought an opportunity to appear when the matter was adjourned no further communication was received by him and consequently, he could not place on record the transfer certificate of the petitioner’s father which was signed by the Headmaster and the Education Officer which shows the petitioner’s caste as Lingayat (Mali). Further, in Column 13 again sub caste is mentioned as Mali. 2. The petitioner’s caste claim has been rejected on the ground that he has not produced any documents to show that he belongs to Lingayat Mali. Considering the documents as now shown to us we feel that ends of justice will be met if the impugned order of respondent No.2 dated 21st July, 2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration according to law. The committee to dispose off the same within a period of six months from today. The petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.3 on 5th October, 2005 at 11.00 a.m. for further directions." 4. Thus matter was remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for granting an opportunity of being heard to : 3 : the petitioner and also to consider the documents in relation to the transfer certificate of the petitioner’s father which was signed by the Headmaster and the Education Officer which shows the petitioner’s caste as "Lingayat Mali". Admittedly, thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Committee and filed his written statement alongwith documents on 12.1.2006. The petitioner, not only submitted his written statement but also the list of documents on which he is relying. The Scrutiny Committee again decided the matter by order dated 28.2.2006, again holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Lingayat Mali" caste is not valid. 5. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have perused the record. 6. Perusal of the order which is impugned in this petition shows that the Scrutiny Committee refers to the submissions filed by the petitioner on 12.1.2006 but the Committee nowhere discusses what is stated by the petitioner in his submissions. It also does not refer to any documents which are filed by the petitioner alongwith his submissions. In short, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is a non speaking order. It is now an established law that a quasi judicial authority is obliged : 4 : to disclose its reasons for its order which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, otherwise the order would be violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The order of the Scrutiny Committee will have to be set aside. 7. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice :- a) The order dated 28.2.2006, impugned in this petition is set aside. b) The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for de-novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. It is also specifically directed that while disposing off the matter, the Scrutiny Committee shall assign reasons for its conclusion. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) : 5 : (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)