- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6188 OF 2007 ... Chandrakant Nivrutti Bathe ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.A.Kumbhkoni, Associate Advocate General with Mr.C.R.Sonawane for the State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: - 2 - 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 13-8-2007 and the intimation dated 11-7-2007. The Scrutiny Committee by the order impugned in the petition has held that the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner that he belongs to Kunbi (OBC) Caste is not valid. 2. The order is challenged on two grounds, (i) that as required by the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v/s. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Scrutiny committee had referred the matter for inquiry to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted the report. But till the Scrutiny Committee decided that the caste claim of the Petitioner was invalid on 11-7-2007, copy of that report was not given to the Petitioner and it was given to the Petitioner first time on 12-7-2007 and (ii) that the Scrutiny Committee has not given any show cause notice to the Petitioner as required by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, in case the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of the candidate and the Scrutiny Committee proposes to - 3 - disagree with the report. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We find that by intimation dated 12-7-2007 the Petitioner was informed that the certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner that he belongs to Kunbi caste is invalid. As required by the directions of the Supreme Court contained in the judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil, report of the vigilance cell was called by the committee. A copy of that report, as per the averments made in paragraph 7 of the petition, was given to the Petitioner on 12-7-2007. This allegation is not denied by the Respondent. Thus, from the record available it appears that till the Committee decided on 11-7-2007 that the caste claim of the Petitioner is invalid, a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell was not supplied to the Petitioner. A copy of that report has been placed on record. Perusal of that report shows that, according to that report the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Kunbi caste is correct. 4. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, specially directions contained in paragraphs 13(5), - 4 - 13(6), 13(7) & 13(8) in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, if the Scrutiny Committee had proposed to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it was for the Committee to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner with a copy of the report to show cause why the Committee should not disagree with the report. Without following that procedure, the Scrutiny Committee has disagreed with the report of the Vigilance Cell. Perusal of the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell shows that the Vigilance Cell has recommended that the validity certificate should be issued in favour of the Petitioner. Still the Scrutiny Committee has held that the caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner is invalid, and this has been done by the Respondent No.2 without issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil. It is, thus, clear that the intimation dated 11-7-2007 as also the order dated 13-8-2007 are invalid. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R - 5 - (i) The intimation dated 11-7-2007 and the order dated 13-8-2007 are set aside. (ii) The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. (iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (iv) We have been informed that as a result of the order dated 13-8-2007 impugned in the petition the Petitioner has been removed from his elective office. No reliefs have been claimed about that in the petition. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy in that regard. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)