vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6768 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.6768 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.6768 OF 2007 Shri Rajendra Ashok Jasud ... 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 Respondents 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.: 1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. This petition challenges the constitutional validity of section 12A of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act 1961. It also impugns the decision of the Scrutiny Committee delivered o 13.8.2007 holding that the petitioner was not a Kunbi Maratha as claimed by him. 2. The challenge to the constitutional validity has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court (Mhase & Karnik, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.5691 of 2007 alongwith other connected matters and, therefore, we need not dwell upon this challenge in the present petition. The Division Bench has held that the provisions of section 12A are directory and not : 2 : mandatory. 3. The petitioner contested the elections to the Panchayat Samiti, Shiroor, Block No.30 at and post Karade, Taluka Shiroor, District Pune. The petitioner was elected to this constituency and was required to produce a caste validity certificate in accordance with 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 Maratha caste. 4. The Scrutiny Committee has without considering the vigilance report rejected 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. Reasons are required to 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 by the Committee to the petitioner in that behalf, prior to its final decision. 5. In the present case, it is evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order of the scrutiny committee : 3 : that the committee has not referred to the vigilance report at all. In fact it has not considered other documents which were on record before it. We, therefore, have no option but to remand the matter to the scrutiny committee to decide afresh the caste claim of the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 27.3.2008. The Committee will take a decision within three months from that date. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)