1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2010 Dilawar S. Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for R. Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Amit Borkar for R. No. 5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 08, 2010. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. By this petition, Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 21.7.2010 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to the caste “Darji” O.B.C. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. We find from the record that as per directions of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Madhuri Patil and Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, the report of the Vigilance Cell was 2 called. The Vigilance cell submitted report which was in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee desires to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it could have done so only after issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner and asking him to show cause for the reasons disclosed in the show cause notice why the committee should not disagree with the recommendations of the Vigilance cell. However, in the present case, Scrutiny Committee without issuing any show cause notice to the Petitioner disagreed with the report of the Vigilance Cell and rejected the caste claim of the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the order of the Scrutiny Committee will have to be set aside. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice : The order impugned in this petition is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for de novo consideration and decision accordingly in view of the observations made above. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)