vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5882 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5882 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5882 OF 2007 Shri Shankar Kisan Patil ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Petitioner Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, AAG with Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.3 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 MARCH 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Regional Caste Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune constituted under section 6(4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. The petitioner had contested the elections to the Panhala Panchayat Samiti for the year 2007. He was elected as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. In accordance with the Rules, the petitioner’s caste certificate, which indicated that the petitioner belonged to Maratha Kunbi : 2 : caste, was referred to the Scrutiny Committee i.e. Respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner was heard by the Committee. He had submitted several documents in support of his caste claim. The vigilance cell had submitted its report on 10.7.2007 before the Committee indicating that the petitioner belongs to the Kunbi caste which is a backward class. 3. By the impugned order dated 11.7.2007, the petitioner’s caste certificate has been invalidated and hence, the present petition. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice the fact that the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the reasoned decision of the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner was only intimated of the decision. That intimation was signed by three members of the committee including the Chairman. 5. The intimation received by the petitioner indicates that the Committee has declared that he was not a Kunbi and that the certificate issued to him by the competent authority was invalid and therefore, confiscated. In our opinion, a mere intimation of the decision of the scrutiny committee is not sufficient. The petitioner ought to have been given the reasons as : 3 : to why the committee had invalidated his caste certificate. Unless the reasons for the decision are disclosed to the petitioner, it would be impossible for him to challenge the order of the caste scrutiny committee meaningfully. Besides, this Court would not be able to judicially review the order effectively. Therefore, in our opinion, it was incumbent on the caste scrutiny committee to supply to the petitioner the reasons for invalidation of his caste claim. 6. In such circumstances, the petition is allowed. The intimation and the decision of the caste scrutiny committee holding that the petitioner does not belong to the Kunbi caste is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner will appear before the Committee on 27.3.2008. The Committee will take a decision within three months from that date. Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)