- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5874 OF 2007 Yuvraj Dattajirao Patil. ...Petitioner VS. 1.State of Maharashtra & anr. ...Respondents --- Mr.H.S.Venegavkar, for Petitioner. Mr.A.Kumbhakoni, Asst.Advocate General with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, for Respondent nos.1 & 2. 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. The petitioner by this petition challenges the intimation dated 11.7.2007 given by the Regional Caste Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune, to - 2 - the petitioner intimating that the caste certificate that he belongs to "Kunbi (OBC)" class is invalid. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 14.8.2007 passed by the said Committee where the committee has given reasons for its decision. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have perused the record. It appears that the committee for the purpose of holding inquiry had commissioned report from the vigilance cell. It may be pointed out that the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case "Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors, (1994)6 SCC 241" has directed that a report from the vigilance cell should be called by the scrutiny committee and the scrutiny committee called for the report from the vigilance cell in obedience of the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The vigilance cell submitted its report which is dated 8.6.2007. The vigilance cell submitted in its report stating that from the material produced before it appears that the petitioner belongs to "Kunbi" caste. From the order dated 14.8.2007 it appears that the report of the vigilance cell has been referred to by the committee, however, the committee in the order - 3 - has nowhere considered the recommendation made by the vigilance cell and the conclusion reached by it. The committee has also not given any reasons why it has discarded the opinion expressed by the vigilance cell. In our opinion, the report of the vigilance cell including the opinion recorded by the vigilance officer in that report was material and relevant and therefore, it could not have been ignored by the committee and if the committee wanted to disagree with the opinion recorded by the vigilance cell as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in "Kumari Madhuri Patil" case referred to above in paragraph 13(6, 7 and 8), the Committee was under an obligation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner asking to show cause why the committee should not disagree with the report submitted by the vigilance cell. The committee disregarding the directions issued by the Supreme Court in "Kumari Madhuri Patil" case, discarded the report which was submitted by the vigilance cell. It also did not give any reasons in the order why it does not agree with the report submitted by the vigilance cell. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the scrutiny committee is passed in violation of binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in the "Kumari - 4 - Madhuri Patil" case referred to above as also in violation of principles of natural justice. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- . The intimation dated 11.7.2007 and the order dated 14.8.2007 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.) ---