Kambli 1 wp7894.10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7894 OF 2010 ... Sunita Dasu Rathod alias Smt.Kiran Krushna Pawar ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for State. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. Dated: 13th October, 2010 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Kambli 2 wp7894.10 2. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Lamani Denotified Nomadic Tribe is not valid. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perusal of the order shows that the Scrutiny Committee has held that the Petitioner is a migrant to the State of Maharashtra, and therefore, is not entitled to the benefits available to a person belonging to Lamani Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee in order to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court contained in its judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v/s. Addl.Commissioner, Tribe Dept, 1994 (6) SCC, 241, had called for the report from the Vigilance Cell. Perusal of the report of the Vigilance Cell shows that the Kambli 3 wp7894.10 Vigilance Cell’s recommendation was that the Petitioner is not a migrant. The Scrutiny Committee, however, without giving any show cause notice to the Petitioner disclosing its intention to disagree with the finding of the Vigilance Cell, proceeded to disregard the report of the Vigilance Cell. In our opinion, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), if the Scrutiny Committee proposes to disagree with the finding recorded by the Vigilance Cell, it was for the Scrutiny Committee to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioner to that effect disclosing its intention of disagreeing with the report of the Vigilance Cell and disclosing why it wants to do it and grant the Petitioner an opportunity to make submission in that regard. That was not done by the Scrutiny Committee. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Kambli 4 wp7894.10 Committee impugned in the petition will have to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) The order impugned in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)