[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION W.P.NO.7248 OF 2008 Sharad Shivnarayan Pardeshi ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mrs.H.Mandlik i/b R.K.Mendadkar advocate for Petitioner Mr.V.S.Masurkar GP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : APRIL 15, 2009 DATE : APRIL 15, 2009 DATE : APRIL 15, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. On remand by the High Court, the Petitioner’s application for approval of the Caste Certificate, has been rejected by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee by order dated 19.10.2007. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondents. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Research Officer of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Mumbai Division, Konkan [-2-] Bhavan, New Mumbai. The only ground agitated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner before us was that the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee consists of three members, whereas only two members of the Committee heard the matter and when the order was pronounced, it was signed by all the three members. One of the members did not hear the matter but put his signature on the order. This has been accepted in the counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that upon the case of the Petitioner being remanded back to the Committee by the High Court, detailed hearing was given to the Petitioner on 29.9.2007. On the said occasion, due to administrative difficulties one of the members of the Committee could not attend. Since three members were required to hear the petitioner and decide the matter, it is submitted that the order passed by three members after the hearings have been given by only two members, vitiates the order. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this controversy is already covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004(1) B.C.R. 168 (Vijay Kisan Karanjkar Vs. State of Maharashtra). Following the judgment, we set aside the order passed by the Committee and [-3-] remand the matter back to the Committee for passing a fresh order after giving hearings to the parties, within three months from today. 3. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [BILAL NAZKI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]