IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1483 OF 2009. Smt. Vimal w/o Ashok Mirajkar ... PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri R.P. Phatke, Special Counsel for R.No.2. & as Addl. G.P. for R.No3. Shri R.P. Powar, Advocate for R.Nos.4 and 5. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: 5th FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for the respondents waive notice. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31st May, 2008 invalidating the caste certificate of the petitioner. For the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it may not be necessary to advert to all the factual matrix of the case. The limited grievance made before us today as has been specifically stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was never informed about the hearing of the case and she was shocked to directly receive the impugned order by post. The order does record that intimation was sent to the petitioner from time to time in respect of personal hearing on 28th February, 2007, 22nd March, 2007, 31st March, 2008 and 30th April, 2008 but, the petitioner failed to remain present. However, when called upon to substantiate the fact that such notices sent to the petitioner were duly served on the petitioner, the Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee fairly submits that acknowledgment about service of such intimation is not available in the record. In other words, the record only contains copy of the intimation about the date of hearing of the case but, the fact whether such intimation was duly served on the petitioner has not been substantiated. Moreover, the petitioner has stated on affidavit in the present petition that such notices were never received by the petitioner. That fact has not been controverted in spite of opportunity available to the respondents to do so after issuance of notice as back as on 22nd March, 2009 and adjournment of hearing of this petition on more than one occasion in the past. 4. From the order impugned before us, it is noticed that the petitioner had submitted reply on 20th December, 2004 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to explain the circumstances referred to in the Vigilance Cell Report. Thereafter, the matter remained pending without any action till February, 2004 with the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the reasons best known to the said Committee. Assuming that the stand of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has to be accepted as it is, the earliest date for hearing thereafter was scheduled on 28th February, 2007. However, as noticed earlier, there is no material to substantiate the stand of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that intimation regarding the date of hearing was duly communicated to the petitioner. 5. The only proper course, in our opinion, is to set aside the impugned decision and relegate the petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration of the claim, on its own merits, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall remain present in the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15th February, 2010 at 11 a.m. on which date the Caste Scrutiny Committee may proceed with the hearing and conclude the hearing, as expeditiously as possible, in any case, not later than four weeks from that date. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, in any case, shall finally decide the Caste Claim of the petitioner on or before 31st March, 2010 and communicate the order so passed to the petitioner within one week from the date of the order. It is made clear that all questions on merits are left open to be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Since the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is set aside and the caste claim of the petitioner will be reconsidered, on its own merits afresh, the notice dated 14th January, 2009 issued by the respondents No.4 and 5 acting on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall be kept in abeyance until the Caste Scrutiny Committee finally decides the caste claim of the petitioner. Depending on the outcome thereof, it will be open for respondents No.4 and 5 to take such action as may be advised. Rule made absolute on the above terms. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*