1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4917 OF 2005. PETITIONER: Gajanan son of Motiramji Donge, aged about 43 yearws, Occ-service, R/o Amrut Nagar, Jalam Road, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldana. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Amravati. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldana. ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's Orders. Shri NR Saboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri AT Mirza, AGP for the Respondent-2. Smt. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 2 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 26/08/2009. 1. After hearing Advocate Mr. Saboo for the petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande for the Scrutiny Committee (Respondent-1) and learned AGP for the Respondent no.2. Mr. TA Mirza for some time, we find that Vigilance Cell Report was not supplied to the petitioner. Perusal of paragraph 7 of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 30-3-2005 shows that the father of the petitioner had demanded that report, but then it was not supplied and on the very same day, he was heard about the affinity. 2. The facts show that the Sub Divisional Officer, Khamgaon on 3-11-2004 refused to issue the caste certificate to the petitioner after observing that his caste was not Thakur  Scheduled Tribe, but a upper caste Thakur and also after recording the finding that the Buldana 3 District was beyond the areas recognized under the Constitution of Scheduled Tribe Order 1949. The petitioner then challenged the said order by filing the appeal before the Scrutiny Committee. In para 7, the Scrutiny Committee has noticed that it was the appeal before it and therefore, has called the petitioner for hearing. 3. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner was not supplied copy of the Police Vigilance Cell Report and consequently, he did not get an opportunity to file his response to it as envisaged by the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Ku. Madhuri Patil & another vs., Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in AIR 1995 SC Page 94. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same is accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. The matter is restored back to 4 the file of the respondent no.2 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 29-09-2009 and shall be supplied copy of Vigilance Cell Report if any, on that date. If there is no vigilance inquiry at all, Scrutiny Committee shall arrange for the same as per law and after obtaining report thereof, shall proceed further with verification of caste. 5. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case by 30-06-2010. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/