PVR 1 wp5643/09 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5643 OF 2009 Niteen Subhash Bhamre. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 31th August, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner by this petition challenges order dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur PVR 2 wp5643/09 Scheduled Tribe is invalid. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We find that the petitioner Mr.Niteen and his father Mr.Subhash had both applied for verification of their caste claim before the same Scrutiny Committee. The Committee called for the report from Vigilance Cell. The report of the Vigilance Cell is dated 20.8.2002. After considering the material, the Committee issued validity certificate in favour of father of the petitioner dated 13.5.2005. However, by the impugned order the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe is rejected. When the validity certificate issue in favour of father of the petitioner was pointed out to the Committee, the Committee did not consider the fact that the vigilance cell report in relation to both of them was the same. In our opinion, this was the relevant aspect which ought to have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee while considering the claim of PVR 3 wp5643/09 the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. In these circumstances, therefore, in our opinion, the order of the Scrutiny Committee impugned in the petition will have to be set aside. In our view, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The Order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 23.3.2009 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ...