pvr 1 wp7839-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7839 OF 2010 Ms.Rekha Parshuram Mane. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.V.S.Paradkar i/b. Mr.K.D.Juvekar, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 27th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides and after having gone through the record, we find that the pvr 2 wp7839-10 vigilance cell report which was called for pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case Kum.Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Department, 1994(6) SCC 241 , is in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, without giving show cause notice to the petitioner putting the petitioner on the notice that the Scrutiny Committee proposes to disagree with the findings of the Vigilance cell and disclosing reasons therefor, the Scrutiny committee could not have disregarded that report. It also appears that in the Vigilance cell report, it is nowhere alleged that the petitioner is a migrant from the State of Karnataka. In our opinion, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- (i) The order impugned in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo inquiry and decision in accordance with law. The Scrutiny pvr 3 wp7839-10 Committee shall pass final order as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of four months from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.)