- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7642/2008 Rama Sandu Saiwar. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.B.Choudhary, AGP for respondent nos.1, 4 & 5. Shri M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3. Respondent no.6 is allowed to be deleted. ..... CORAM: V.C.DAGA & A.V. POTDAR,JJ. DATE: 16.07.2009 PER COURT: On the motion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is allowed to delete the name of respondent no.6 from the array of parties of the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Heard respective counsel. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while attacking the impugned order dated 20.5.2008, brought to our - 2 - notice a finding recorded by the scrutiny committee wherein the scrutiny committee has said that the petitioner has failed to file affidavit of the relative, who is holder of the validity certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice the affidavit of one Saiwar Ganesh Nathu filed on record of the scrutiny committee. The said affidavit is also referred to by the Vigilance Officer in his report submitted to the scrutiny committee. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the affidavit, on which reliance is being placed (Exh.C – page 28 of the petition), was very much on record of the scrutiny committee, but the scrutiny committee failed to take into account the said affidavit. Under above circumstances, the impugned order passed by the scrutiny committee is liable to be quashed and set aside for non-consideration of the evidence on record. During the course of hearing, all the Advocates appearing for the respondents have consented that without examining the merits or demerits of the impugned order, it be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the scrutiny committee for consideration afresh. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside by consent of parties. The matter is remitted back to the scrutiny committee for consideration afresh and to pass reasoned order following the principles of natural justice. The matter be decided by the committee with expeditious dispatch, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties to appear before the scrutiny committee on 29.7.2009. All rival contentions are kept open. Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar,J.) (V.C. Daga, J.) ndk/c167091