- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4312 OF 2007 ... Simintini S. Korgaokar ...Petitioner v/s. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar i/b Mr.L.M.Acharya for the Petitioner. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar i/b Mr.C.K.Bhagoji for Respondent No.6. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. Mr.A.J.Bhor for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2008 - 2 - P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2 dated 2-6-2007 holding that the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner that she belongs to Vaishya Wani (OBC) caste is invalid. 2. The ground on which validity of this order is challenged is that as required by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v/s. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Scrutiny committee had called for a report of the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted the report on 24-5-2007. In that report, the Vigilance Cell concluded that on making inquiry it found that the caste of the Petitioner is Vaishya Wani. In paragraph (6) of the order the Scrutiny Committee has referred to the report of the Vigilance Cell and has stated that the report of the Vigilance Cell is not in favour of the candidate. This is factually incorrect and on the basis of factually incorrect finding the Scrutiny - 3 - Committee has proceeded to hold that the Petitioner’s caste certificate that she belongs to Vaishya Wani caste is not valid. 3. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, specially directions contained in paragraphs 13(5), 13(6), 13(7) & 13(8) in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s case, if the Scrutiny Committee had proposed to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it was for the Committee to issue show cause notice to the Petitioner with a copy of the report to show cause why the Committee should not disagree with the report. Without following that procedure, the Scrutiny Committee has disagreed with the report of the Vigilance Cell. Perusal of the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell shows that the Vigilance Cell has recommended that the validity certificate should be issued in favour of the Petitioner. Still the Scrutiny Committee has held that the caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner is invalid, and this has been done by the Respondent No.1 without issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner as directed by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil. - 4 - 4. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) The order impugned in the petition passed by the Scrutiny committee is set aside. (ii) The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. (iii) We have been informed that because of the vacation of the interim order, which was earlier granted in this petition, bi-election has been held. In the petition, there is no prayer made in relation to the bi-election that has been held. The Petitioner, therefore, will be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedy in relation to the by-election. (iv) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. - 5 - (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)