-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2273 OF 2008 Ketansinh Randhirsinh Rathod .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai and others. .. Respondents. --- Mr.V.Z. Kankaria for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent -State. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 03RD JUNE, 2008. DATED : 03RD JUNE, 2008. DATED : 03RD JUNE, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Kokan Bhavan, CBD, New Bombay dated 8.2.2008. By that order, the said Committee has rejected the claim made by the petitioner that he belongs to ‘Rajput Bhamta’ caste, which is a denotified tribe. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It appears that the report of vigilance cell -: 2 :- was called by the Scrutiny Committee and that report of the vigilance cell was in favour of the petitioner. Now once the report of the vigilance cell is in favour of the petitioner, as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s Madhuri Patil’s Madhuri Patil’s case AIR 1997 SC 2581, AIR 1997 SC 2581, AIR 1997 SC 2581, it was necessary for the Tribunal to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner if it intended to disagree with the report of the vigilance cell. In the present case, it appears that no show cause notice was issued by the Committee. It further appears that though it appears to be an admitted position that the validity certificate is issued in favour of the sister of the petitioner the Committee was insisting upon the petitioner to produce documents on the basis of which the validity certificate was issued in favour of his sister. It prima facie appears that the attitude adopted by the Committee may not be in consonance with the Government Resolution dated 22nd of August, 2007. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Committee which is impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 4. The order of the Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Kokan Bhavan, CBD, New Bombay dated 8.2.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Committee for consideration and decision in accordance -: 3 :- with the law. 5 . Considering that the petitioner has been admitted against the seat reserved for de-notified tribe, the Tribunal shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today. 6. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition is disposed off. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ..... .....