: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. 8487 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8487 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 8487 OF 2007 Pratyush Sakharam Tamhankar ..Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, Special Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.B. MHASE and CORAM : S.B. MHASE and CORAM : S.B. MHASE and A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008. DATE : 21ST APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. With the consent of the parties Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 5.10.2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for the social status as "Vaishyawani". 3. Without going into the other merits of the matter, we find that the grievance of the Petitioner :2: can be redressed by remanding the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for re-enquiry. 4. It is an admitted fact that though the enquiry in issue was required to be carried out as per the directions of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case, the Vigilance Cell Enquiry was not carried out by the Scrutiny Committee in this case. In fact it is obligatory for the Scrutiny Committee to have a report of Vigilance Cell on record and if the Vigilance Cell Report is adverse to the petitioner, copy of the Vigilance Cell Report and other documents are required to be supplied to the Petitioner. However, such mandatory procedure was absolutely by-passed by the Scrutiny Committee while considering the case of the Petitioner. Therefore the impugned order suffers from a serious illegality and is consequently required to be set aside. 5. Writ Petition is allowed. Order bearing No.MD/CC/Application No. 2891 / PST/ Decision/2007 dated 5.10.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to carry out the Vigilance Cell Enquiry in respect of the Petitioner. After the Vigilance Cell Report is :3: received by the Scrutiny Commissioner, if the Vigilance Cell Report is adverse to the petitioner, copy of the same be given to the Petitioner and opportunity be given to the Petitioner to meet out the said adverse report, if any. The Petitioner is at liberty to produce any additional evidence in support of his claim. The Scrutiny Committee shall hear the case of the Petitioner on its own merits and decide the matter in accordance with law. This exercise should be completed within a period of 12 weeks from today. Admission of the Petitioner in Respondent No.4 College is only protected for a period of 12 weeks. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.) (S. B. MHASE, J.)