1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 780 OF 2007 (Ku. Kanchan Balkrushna Sonkusale vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 27, 2009. Heard Shri Phadnis, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mirza, learned AGP for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. The matter can be disposed of by Short order. The Vigilance Cell found that when the petitioner’s father Balkrushna was admitted in School, caste recorded was “Koshti” and it was later on scored off and corrected as “Halba”. The petitioner submitted his explanation before the Scrutiny Committee and stated that the said correction was as per orders of the Education Officer dated 2.5.1955 in accordance with law. Before the Scrutiny Committee, he sought leave to cross examine the school authorities to bring this material on record. His request was granted by the Scrutiny Committee on 21.11.2006. However, the grievance of Shri Phadnis, learned counsel is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine 2 the school authorities. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee and Shri Mirza, learned AGP for State of Maharashtra contend that such an opportunity was given to the petitioner. We have perused the records of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and we find that on the next date i.e. on 8.12.2006 though the petitioner and said Head Mistress was present and the members of the Scrutiny Committee have perused the records, the order sheet nowhere discloses that the petitioner was called upon to cross examine the Head Mistress and she either declined or then sought any adjournment. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that an opportunity to cross examine was given to the petitioner. The order sheet only mentions that earlier caste recorded in blue ink was Koshti and it was later on found to be corrected in red ink as Halba. The order sheet also does not mention any order of Education Officer. In view of this position and specific statement in writing made by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee while submitting his explanation to Vigilance Cell, we grant the petitioner an opportunity to cross examine the school authorities to bring on record the affidavits necessary for his evidence. However, the same shall be at the cost of the petitioner. For that purpose, we quash and set aside the order dated 21.12.2006. The matter is restored back to the file of Respondent No.2 – 3 Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall remain present before Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee on 30th September 2009 and shall deposit the cost for T.A. and D.A. of school authorities. To avoid any confusion and delay, the petitioner has requested this Court to quantify the cost provisionally. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,000/- with the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 30.09.2009. If the amount is found in excess, Caste Scrutiny Committee may grant refund of balance amount to the petitioner. If the cost is so deposited, Respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee shall issue notice to the school authorities and make necessary documents available for cross examination by the petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall endeavour to decide the matter afresh finally as early as possible and in any case by 31st May 2010. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.