- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6191 OF 2007 Tukaram Maruti Kalokhe ...Petitioner VS. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Smt.R.K.Mendadkar & Ms.H.K.Mandlik, for Petitioner. Mr.A.Kumbhakoni, Asst.Advocate General with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, for Respondent nos.1,2 & 4. Mr.S.B.Shetye, for Respondent no.5. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. - 2 - 2. The petitioner by this petition challenges the intimation dated 11.7.2007 and the order passed by the Regional Caste verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune dated 13.8.2007 holding that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner that he belongs to Kunbi caste, is invalid. It is common ground that the said committee has made reference to the report of the vigilance cell. That report of the vigilance cell was submitted on 6.6.2007. The conclusion of the officer in that report is that the petitioner belongs to Kunbi Maratha caste. Perusal of the order dated 13.8.2007 of the said committee shows that the report has been referred to by the committee, though the finding of the report is in favour of the petitioner, the committee nowhere in its order has given any reason as to why the vigilance cell report is not correct. The vigilance cell report is an important document. The vigilance cell report is commissioned by the scrutiny committee itself, and therefore, the scrutiny committee was under an obligation to consider that report. It is obvious from the order of the committee that the report has not been considered by the committee. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would - 3 - meet the ends of justice:- . The intimation dated 11.7.2007 and the order dated 13.8.2007 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Caste verification committee for denovo consideration, hearing and decision in accordance with law. . Rule is made absolute accordingly. . No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (V.M.Kanade, J.) ---