1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4637 OF 2009 Ram Prakash Dande, Age-20 years, Occupation : Student, R/o.Pimpalgaon, Tq. And Dist. Washim PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. CIDCO N-4, B-26, Aurangabad 2. The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Social Justice, and Special Assistance Department, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya Mumbai-32 RESPONDENTS Mr.Amol Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 01/10/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. The petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India impugns the judgment/order passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 23/06/2009 invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Kunbi” caste. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was not supplied to the petitioner and as a consequence of that, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee stands vitiated as the petitioner did not get an adequate opportunity of countering the statements made in the Vigilance Cell report. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. At para no.13 of the affidavit in reply, it is stated that inadvertently the report of the Vigilance Cell could not be supplied to the petitioner before hearing and final decision of the caste claim of the petitioner. In that light of the matter therefore according to us the petitioner deserves to succeed in the writ petition. 4. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioner of submitting his reply. We accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 26/10/2009 and direct the committee to provide a copy of the report of Vigilance Cell. The petitioner to submit his reply to the report of Vigilance Cell within 3 weeks of 3 receipt of the copy of report of Vigilance Cell. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter to decide the claim afresh in accordance with Law within the period of 6 months. Since we have remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh, we direct that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner solely on the basis of his failure to submit his validity certificate. Further action if any in accordance with Law to be taken/initiated after the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/wp4637-09