vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5830 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5830 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5830 OF 2007 Babasaheb V. Devkar ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S. Godbole for Petitioner Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, AAG with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 to 8 Mr.Amit Borkar for Respondent No.10 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee i.e. Respondent NO.2 whereby the Caste claim of the petitioner has been invalidated. The caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Collector, Kolhapur on 11.12.2003 indicating that the petitioner belonged to the Kunbi caste. Thereafter the petitioner applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer Radhanagari for a caste certificate. This certificate was issued to him on 16.6.2005 indicating that he was a Kunbi. The petitioner contested the elections for the Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur of Block No.44 Sadoli Khalsa Block, : 2 : Taluka Karwar, district Kolhapur in a constituency reserved for other backward classes. He was declared elected on 12.3.2007. The petitioner was required to produce a caste validity certificate under the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961. The caste certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification to Respondent NO.2 Committee. The vigilance cell conducted an enquiry and submitted a report with the finding that the petitioner belongs to the Kunbi community. The vigilance report is dated 7.6.2007. The petitioner submitted various other documents including the birth extracts of his relatives indicating that they were from the Kunbi caste. 3. The Scrutiny Committee has, without considering the vigilance report, negatived the caste claim of the petitioner. A bare perusal of the order indicates that the scrutiny committee has not considered the findings in the vigilance report at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 (1994) 6 SCC 241 (1994) 6 SCC 241 where the Supreme Court has in para 13(vi), (vii) and (viii) given directions with respect to the manner in which the scrutiny committe should deal with the report of the vigilance cell. Reasons are to : 3 : be given by the Scrutiny Committee when it wishes to disagree with the report of the vigilance cell and a show-cause notice is to be issued to the candidate in that behalf. Such a show cause notice must obviously be given to the candidate prior to the scrutiny committee invalidating the caste certificate. This is because the candidate must have adequate opportunity to support the report of the vigilance cell, especially when the report is likely to be discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that it is doubtful or spurious. 4. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (D.K. Deshmukh & V.M. Kanade, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and Writ Petition No.5874 of 207 and 6188 of 2007 6188 of 2007 6188 of 2007 decided on 27.2.2008 and 5.3.2008 respectively. In both these judgments, the Division Bench has, while relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee because the report of the vigilance cell was not considered by the committee. 5. Mr.Borkar appearing for respondent No.10, the defeated candidate submits that this Court need not interfere with the findings of the Scrutiny Committee as they are neither perverse nor erroneous. He points out that the Scrutiny Committee has considered all the evidence before it and has rejected the caste claim of : 4 : the petitioner. He has also relied on several judgments to buttress his arguments. 6. In the present case, it is not necessary for us to advert to the various documents produced before the Committee and to the inference drawn by it on these documents. This is because it is evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order of the scrutiny committee that the committee has not referred to the vigilance report at all. In fact it has not considered some documents which were on record before it. The submissions of Mr.Borkar cannot be accepted in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 7. We, therefore, have no option but to remand the matter to the scrutiny committee to decide the validity of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner indicating that he belongs to the Kunbi caste. The petitioner will appear before the Committee on 27.3.2008. The Committee will take a decision within three months from that date. Rule made absolute accordingly. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (J.N. PATEL, J.)