1 WP No.6980/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6980 of 2010 Pradeep S. Wadekar ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Sujeet G. Kurup and Shivaji P. Yadav for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.Irfan A. Shaikh i/b S.B.Shetye for respondent no.5. Mr.Shrihari Aney with Mr.R.K. Mendadkar, Jay Bhatia and Ms.Helen Mandlik for respondent no.6. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 11th October 2010 P.C. 1. Names of respondent nos.3 and 4 are permitted to be deleted. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This petition is directed against the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 5th August 2010. The relevant facts are that 2 WP No.6980/10 respondent no.6 secured the certificate certifying that he belongs to Gondhali Nomadic Tribe. That certificate was sent for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee on 19th January 2001 certified that the claim of the respondent no.6 that he belongs to Gondhali Nomadic Tribe is valid. Challenging that certificate, Writ Petition no.6553 of 2007 was filed. That petition was decided by Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2nd March 2010. It appears that the petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee for review of this order issuing validity certificate in favour of the respondent no.6 on the ground that he had relied on some forged documents and had played fraud. That application was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. That order was challenged in the above referred petition. This Court by its order dated 2nd March 2010 found that the Scrutiny Committee can examine the aspect of forgery or fraud involved in obtaining the validity certificate from the Scrutiny Committee and the matter was remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for looking into that aspect of the matter. The Scrutiny Committee passed the order dated 5th August 2010 holding that the respondent no.6 has not played any fraud in obtaining the validity certificate and he has also not relied on any forged document. It is this order which is challenged in the present petition. At the hearing of this petition, we found that the original validity certificate dated 19th January 2001 was issued by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of respondent no.6 without calling for a report from the Vigilance Cell. It is common ground before us that as a result of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994(6) SCC 241, it is mandatory that the Scrutiny Committee calls for a report of the vigilance cell before deciding any caste claim which is referred to it for scrutiny and therefore, the learned 3 WP No.6980/10 counsel appearing for respondent no.6 agreed that as the validity certificate dated 19th January 2001 itself has been issued by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of respondent no.6 without calling for vigilance cell report, it is liable to be set aside. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R 4. The validity certificate dated 19th January 2001 holding that the respondent no.6 belongs to Gondhali Nomadic Tribe is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo enquiry in accordance with law. 5. It is specifically directed that the Scrutiny Committee shall call for a fresh vigilance cell report and proceed to hold enquiry in accordance with law. Respondent no.6 and the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce any material that they want to produce in support of their respective cases. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three months from today. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)