1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1654 OF 2004 Chaitanya Sudam Lad. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and another. ...Respondents. --- Mr.V.Z.Kankaria, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny committee holding that the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Hindu Khatik caste which is a schedule caste, is not valid. The order has been challenged by the petitioner on several grounds. But, in our opinion, 2 it is not necessary to consider all those grounds. It is obvious from the record that as required by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case “Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., (1994)6 SCC 241”, the scrutiny committee has referred the matter to the vigilance cell. The vigilance cell submitted its report and that report was in favour of the petitioner. As per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the “Kumari Madhuri Patil” case referred to above, if the Committee proposes to agree with the report of the vigilance cell then there is nothing further to be done and validity certificate has to be issued. But if the Committee does not agree with the report of the vigilance cell, then the Committee has to supply a copy of the report to the petitioner and ask him to show cause as to why the Committee should not disagree with the report of the vigilance cell and should not hold that the caste certificate is not valid. Admittedly this course of action has not been followed by the Committee and by the order impugned the Committee disagreed with the report of the vigilance cell and held that because the petitioner 3 is not able to prove that she belongs to Hindu Khatik scheduled caste, her certificate to that effect is not valid. This order of the scrutiny committee is in clear breach of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case “Kumari Madhuri Patil” referred to above. 2. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order of the scrutiny committee impugned in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the committee for denovo consideration, hearing and decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---