pvr １ wp9573-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9573 OF 2011 Sou.Malika Vaibhav Bhise @ Malika Ravindra Jambekar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.C.G.Gavnekar, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.Vikas Mali, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 12th December,2011. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner s claim that she belongs to OBC Kunbi caste was sent to Scrutiny Committee for verification. It appears that the Scrutiny Committee called for the report pvr ２ wp9573-11 of Vigilance Cell. The report of the Vigilance Cell was against the petitioner. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee by letter dated 12.9.2011 asked the petitioner to submit her explanation in relation to the report of the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner after receiving this letter addressed Communication dated 1.10.2011 to the Vigilance Cell making a grievance that though by communication dated 12.9.2011 she was asked to submit her explanation in relation to the report of the Vigilance Cell, copy of that report has not been sent to her. The Scrutiny Committee has referred to this aspect of the matter in its order dated 12.10.2011 which is challenged in the petition in paragraph 7. The Scrutiny Committee, however, without recording the finding on the grievance of the petitioner that she has not received copy of the report of the vigilance cell, has observed that the petitioner asked for the copy of report of vigilance cell only to delay the proceedings. The petitioner has stated pvr ３ wp9573-11 on oath that she has not received the copy of report of vigilance cell. If the report of vigilance cell is against the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to copy of that report and is also entitled to submit her explanation in relation to the report and the Scrutiny committee is under duty to consider that explanation. That procedure, obviously, has not been followed in the present case. 2. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 9.1.2012. On that date the Scrutiny Committee shall hand over to the petitioner a copy of the report of Vigilance pvr ４ wp9573-11 Cell. The petitioner thereafter will be given reasonable time to submit her explanation to the vigilance cell report and thereafter, the Scrutiny Committee shall hear the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)