1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3669 of 2008 [Jawala Sudhakarrao Raikwar Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. G.G. Mishra, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. P.B. Patil, Adv., for respondent no.2. ------ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 24th August, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. G.G. Mishra for the petitioner-candidate, learned AGP Mr. Mirza for respondent no.1 and learned Adv. Mr. Patil for respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee. 2. Perusal of Paragraph 12 of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee clearly reveals that though the Scrutiny Committee forwarded notices calling upon the petitioner to remain present before it, the petitioner has not turned up. The petitioner has stated that notices have not been served upon her, while learned Adv. Mr. Patil for Scrutiny Committee points out that notices were sent by Regd. Post Acknowledgment Due on the address notified by the candidate. 2 In fact, we find that one notice dated 5th May, 2004 is accepted by the petitioner as  served , but she contends that she has been served after the date of hearing, namely 15th May, 2004. 3. The petitioner is stated to be in service with respondent no.3-Unit Trust of India and this Court has protected her services on 29th August, 2008. After receipt of belated notice from Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner has not taken any effort to find out what has happened to the matter, and her only communication thereafter is dated 13th December, 2004. 4. In the circumstances, though we are not satisfied with bonafides of the petitioner, still as we find that Scrutiny Committee has not drawn any adverse inference against the petitioner and in the impugned order, there appears no such application of mind, we find that petitioner needs to be given one opportunity. For said purpose, the impugned order dated 30th May, 2005 is hereby quashed and set aside and proceedings are restored back to the file of respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2- Scrutiny Committee on 7th September, 2009 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. The petitioner shall not be given any adjournment by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to decide the 3 matter finally as early as possible, and in any case by 31st December, 2009. Rule is made absolute accordingly. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that a copy of Vigilance Cell report is not supplied to petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for Scrutiny Committee states that if such a copy is not already supplied, the same will be furnished to the petitioner on 7th September, 2009. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4