5.wp.701-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.701 OF 2010 Umakant Chandrakant Halkurki. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate i/b. Mrs.Jai V. Kanade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2010. P.C. 1. On a motion, made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the name of respondent No.4 is permitted to be deleted. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the caste Girani Waddar in the 5.wp.701-10 2 State of Maharashtra because his forefathers were born in the State of Karnataka. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Scrutiny Committee had in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 called report from the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report dated 17.4.2009 wherein the Vigilance Cell reported in favour of the petitioner saying that as he was born on 16.10.1961 in the State of Maharashtra, he is entitled to the benefits available to the persons belonging to denotified tribes in Maharashtra. Along with a letter dated 28th July, 2009 copy of this report was forwarded to the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee did not agree with the report of the Vigilance Cell and held that because the forefathers of the petitioner were born in the State of Karnataka, he is not entitled to the benefits available to the persons belonging to denotified tribes in the Sate of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court in its judgment in Madhuri Patil (supra) has laid 5.wp.701-10 3 down a law that in case the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of a candidate and the Scrutiny Committee propose to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it is necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to give show cause notice to the candidate along with a copy of the Vigilance Cell asking him to show cause why the Committee should not disagree with that report. This procedure, admittedly, has not been followed in the present case. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee will have to be set aside. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed as such. The order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)