{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4094 OF 2009 Smt.Qureshi Asefabegum Kadeer Qureshi R/o Qureshi Mohalla Partur Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The S.C., S.T. V.J., OBC & SBC Category Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Municipal Council Partur, Tq-Partur, Dist-Jalna Through its Chief Officer RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr.Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 9 th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned {2} counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 10/12.06.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Kasab Other Backward Class. 3. It appears that the petitioner has contested election of the Municipal Council and got herself elected as member of the said council on a seat reserved for OBC category candidate. It further appears that on 03.06.2009, caste certificate of the petitioner came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee by the Collector, Jalna for verification. Vide order dated 12.06.2009, the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated by the Committee, which order is impugned in the present petition. 4. The petitioner had submitted various documents for establishing her claim as belonging to Kasab other backward class, which are also reflected in the impugned order. Though the petitioner claims that she belongs to “Kasab” caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class yet the documents submitted by her pertaining to her relatives indicate their caste as “Khatik”. Respondent Scrutiny Committee had referred the caste certificate of the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell and accordingly report of the Vigilance Cell came to be submitted. Amongst various grounds on which the claim of the petitioner is invalidated one of the ground is that the petitioner had not produced any certificate prior to 31.10.1967. {3} 5. During the course of submissions it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was asked to appear before the committee on 10.06.2009 on which date report of the Vigilance Cell came to be submitted. Thereafter, the matter was heard on the very same day and hence the petitioner was deprived of her valuable rights of submitting reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. It is also urged that the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously insisted for production of documents prior to 31.10.1967 as the said caste “Kasab” came to be included in GR dated 09.08.1995 and hence the aforesaid insistence was unwarranted. It is also urged that the caste “Kasab” came to be included as OBC vide Government Resolution dated 09.08.1995 whereas caste “Muslim Khatik” came to be included as OBC in GR dated 01.01.2001. Consequently, the certificates issued to the relatives of the petitioner indicate the caste as “Khatik” while certificate issued to the petitioner, which was prior to 2001, shows caste of the petitioner as “Kasab”. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, urged to remit the matter back to the committee for decision afresh in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the Committee has urged before us that vide Government Resolution dated 09.08.1995 caste “Kasab” came to be included at entry No.257 whereas vide Government Resolution dated 01.01.2001 caste “Muslik Khatik” came to be included at entry No.316 and since both the castes are different, they cannot be said to be synonym of each other. Consequently, the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to “Kasab” caste has miserably failed in establishing that she belongs to ‘Kasab” caste as the petitioner has produced certificates of her {4} relatives on record which showed that their caste was recorded as “Muslim Khatik / Khatik”. It is, thus, urged that no nexus has been established by the petitioner viz-a-viz caste “Kasab” and “Khatik”. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that copy of the Vigilance Cell report was not provided to her, which is apparent from the impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of her valuable rights of submitting reply to the report. There is nothing on record to indicate that copy of the Vigilance Cell was supplied to the petitioner. Obviously, the petitioner has been deprived of her valuable rights of submitting reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. The question is, whether a copy of the report had, in fact, been provided to the petitioner by giving her an adequate opportunity of submitting reply. Perusal of impugned order shows that the report was submitted on 10.06.2009 and hearing was fixed on the very same day. Obviously, report of the Vigilance Cell was not found by the committee in favour of the petitioner and hence the claim of the petitioner has been invalidated, as the vigilance cell report is one of the ground for invalidating the claim of the petitioner. 8. Since report was not supplied to the petitioner, as per provisions of law, giving her an opportunity of submitting reply to the adverse findings, the petition deserves to be allowed. Since we are inclined to allow the petition and remit the matter back to the committee giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file her reply to the report of the vigilance cell, we refrain from expressing any opinion so far as merits of the matter are concerned. 9. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the impugned order {5} is hereby quashed and set aside. We remit the matter back to the scrutiny committee for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her reply to the report of the vigilance cell. We direct that the committee shall serve a copy of the report on the petitioner giving her an opportunity to submit reply. Petitioner is directed to appear before the scrutiny committee on 22.09.2009. We expect that the vigilance cell report would be served on her and thereafter the case would be fixed for filing reply of the petitioner. The Committee, if the petitioner files reply to the report, shall hear the petitioner afresh and pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the reply by the petitioner. 10. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4094-09