vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5766 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5766 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5766 OF 2007 Bapu Sukhadev Gaikwad ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole for Petitioner Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, AAG with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 9 Mr.S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.10 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee i.e. Respondent No.2 whereby the Caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated. The caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the District Collector Solapur on 17.2.2007 indicating that the petitioner belonged to the Kunbi caste. The petitioner contested the elections for the Panchayat Samiti, Karmala from Raogaon Block, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur from a constituency reserved for other backward classes. He was declared elected 12.3.2007. The petitioner was required to produce a caste validity certificate under the Maharashtra Zilla : 2 : Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961. The caste certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification to Respondent NO.2 Committee. The vigilance cell conducted an enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the petitioner belongs to the Kunbi community. 3. The Scrutiny Committee has, without considering the vigilance report, negatived the caste claim of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order indicates that the scrutiny committee has not considered the findings in the vigilance report at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 (1994) 6 SCC 241 (1994) 6 SCC 241 where the Supreme Court has in para 13(vi), (vii) and (viii) given directions with respect to the manner in which the scrutiny committe should deal with the report of the vigilance cell. Reasons are to be given by the Scrutiny Committee when it wishes to disagree with the report of the vigilance cell and a show-cause notice is to be issued to the candidate in that behalf. Obviously, therefore, the show cause notice must be issued to the candidate prior to the Scrutiny Committee recording its reasons for rejecting the vigilance report. : 3 : 4. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (D.K. Deshmukh & V.M. Kanade, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and 6188 of 2007 6188 of 2007 6188 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2008 and 5.3.2008 respectively. In both these judgments, the Division Bench has, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee because the report of the vigilance cell was not considered by the committee. 5. In the present case, it is evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order of the scrutiny committee that the committee has not referred to vigilance report at all. In fact it has not considered other documents which were on record before it. We, therefore, have no option but to remand the matter to the scrutiny committee to decide the validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner indicating that he belongs to the Kunbi caste. The petitioner will appear before the Committee on 27.3.2008. The Committee will take a decision within three months from that date. Rule made absolute accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing further remains in Civil application No.54 of 2008 and the same is disposed of accordingly. : 4 : (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (J.N. PATEL, J.)