pvr 1 wp9679-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9679 OF 2010 Dattatray Prabhakar Khare. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, for Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, AGP for Respondents-State. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO,JJ. DATED: 9th December, 2010 P.C.: 1. On a motion made by the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner, the name of Respondent no.3 is deleted. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner pvr 2 wp9679-10 challenges order dated 1.11.2010 passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Hindu Lohar (Nomadic Tribe-B) is not valid. We find from the record that pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court contained in the judgment in the case Kum.Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Dept., 1994(6) SCC 241 , the vigilance cell report was called by the Scrutiny Committee. The vigilance cell report was submitted which is dated 18.11.2009. Perusal of that report shows that it is in favour of the candidate i.e. the Petitioner. Now in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kum.Madhuri Patil case, the law is well settled that if the Scrutiny Committee has decided to disagree with the vigilance cell report then it is for the Committee to give show cause notice to the Petitioner with the reasons as to why the Scrutiny Committee proposes to disagree with the decision of the Vigilance Cell report. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed without pvr 3 wp9679-10 giving the Petitioner such a show cause notice. Therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is in violation of the directions issued by the Supreme Court as also the principles of natural justice. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for being dealt with in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. All the contentions available to both the sides are kept open. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (R.Y.Ganoo,J.)