1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5121 OF 1997. Smt.Malti Ravji Koli,Age major, Occ.Primary Teacher, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Manur (Bk.), Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Executive Magistrate, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. District Collector and District Magistrate, Jalgaon. 3. Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, through its Chief Executive Officer, Jalgaon. 4. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Nasik, through its Secretary. 5. State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents. ... Mr.L.V.Sangit, advocate instructed by Mr.V.J.Dixit, Sr. advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 Mr.U.S.Malte, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner assails the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 7.5.1997, by virtue of which the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Tokre Koli (Scheduled Tribe) has been invalidated. 2. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee, Nasik. According to the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee had issued notice directing the petitioner to appear before it on 11.4.1997 for personal hearing. The petitioner received the said notice on 10.4.1997 and had to remain present on 11.4.1997. According to the petitioner, no proper opportunity was given to her. 3 3. Mr.Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner could not submit all the relevant documents and had to appear before the Committee in hurried manner. He also further submitted that there is no report of the Vigilance cell and the same is mandatory. 4. The judgment of the Scrutiny Committee, does not reflect that the report from the Vigilance cell was asked or that any inquiry was made by the Vigilance cell. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others" AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, constitution of Vigilance cell is mandatory. 5. In view of the fact that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner and also there was no report of the Vigilance cell, we think it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee. 4 6. In light of the above, the impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Tokre Koli" (Scheduled Tribe) afresh. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.4 Committee on 2.8.2010. In view of the fact that the petitioner is directed to appear on 2.8.2010, the issuance of notice by the Committee is waived. The Committee shall decide the claim within a period of one year from today. Interim order passed by this Court on 19.12.1997 to continue till the decision of the Scrutiny Committee and for further period of four (4) weeks from the receipt of communication, in the event the Scrutiny Committee decides against the petitioner. Rule made absolute on above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp512197 5