1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3457 of 2010 Suraj Fulchand Balvant, Age 33 years, Occ. Nil R/o, Murud, Shivaji Nagar, Taluka and Dist. Latur. Petitioner Versus Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Member Secretary. Respondents Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent Committee, dated 13th August, 2004, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner. 3] The limited ground, on which the petitioner relies is that 2 though under the Rules, it is necessary that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell should be furnished to the petitioner, the same has not been furnished. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, in W.P. No. 8374 of 2006, “ Sudhakar More Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee”, to which one of us ( Justice R.M. Borde) is a party. 4] Shri Phatke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and as such, has waived the right to get a copy of the vigilance cell. He further opposes the petition on the ground of delay and laches. 5] We have considered the material before us. In so far as the delay and laches are concerned, reliance placed by the learned counsel on para.7 of the judgment (cited supra) is well placed. We find that the facts in the present case are almost identical with the case cited supra and in that view of the matter, we are not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches. 6] We have perused the record. There is no material on record to show that a copy of the vigilance cell report was in fact served upon the petitioner. In order to avoid any doubt, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have served a copy of the same by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. There is no acknowledgment receipt on record to show that the petitioner has received a copy of the vigilance cell report. 3 7] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition. The impugned order dated 13th August, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent Committee for deciding it afresh in accordance law, from the stage of supply of copy of vigilance cell report. Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 20th December, 2010. As such, the requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. On that day, the committee shall supply a copy of the vigilance cell report to the petitioner and thereafter decide the claim of the petitioner, within a period of 3 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the committee. We clarity that until the respondent committee decides the claim of the petitioner afresh, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp