1 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6634 OF 2010 Ramchandra Yallappa Badagi ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. For Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 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 6.7.2010 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to have his caste claim verified by the Committee because he is not permanent resident of State of Maharashtra. It appears that the Petitioner had obtained caste certificate certifying that he belongs to “Vadar” Nomadic tribe. That certificate was being scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee called for the Vigilance 2 Cell report. The Vigilance Cell report was in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, show cause notice was issued by the Committee to the Petitioner asking him to show cause why it should not disagree with the said report. Thereafter the Committee made the order as indicated above. Short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice dated 25.2.2010 does not give any reason why the Committee proposed to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell. In the absence of any reasons being disclosed by the committee as to why it proposed to disagree with the recommendations of the Vigilance cell, the Petitioner could not effectively show the cause. We have heard the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Scrutiny Committee. He is not able to justify that the show cause notice that is issued by the Committee complies with the principles of natural justice. In our opinion, as the Vigilance cell submitted a detailed report, the Committee could not have merely said that they do not agree with the report. It was for the committee to indicate reasons why they propose not to agree with the report so that the Petitioner could have shown cause. We find that the order impugned is made in violation of the 3 principles of natural justice and therefore order is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice : The impugned order in the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for de novo consideration in accordance with the law and in the light of the above observations made above. The committee shall permit the petitioner to adduce additional evidence, if the Petitioner applies for the same. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)