1 WP9714/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9714 OF 2011 Sujaysingh R. Rajput ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr R.K. Mendadkar with Mr K.T. Pawar for Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2011. 2 WP9714/11 P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2  Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Kolhapur holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta, Denotified Tribe is not valid. It is clear from the record that the Vigilance Cell had submitted the report and that report was in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kum Madhuri Patil v/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, in case the Scrutiny Committee wanted to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it should have granted an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then taken its decision. As this procedure is not followed, the petitioner should succeed. In our 3 WP9714/11 opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 3] The impugned order is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE ANOOP V. MOHTA )