-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2008 Narayan Janu Pawar : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.A.L.Patki, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for resp. nos.1, 2 & 4. Ms S.M.Modle for B.M.C. Ms Anjali Iyer for respondent no.5. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the respondent no.2 invalidating the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 29.8.2006. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the order suffers from the infirmity of violation of the principles of natural justice as a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer dated 24.9.2008 has not been supplied to the petitioner before or at any stage of the -: 2 :- proceedings or even before passing the impugned order. According to him, the hearing of the case was concluded on 20.9.2008 while the report received subsequently has been made the foundation of the impugned order. The learned counsel appearing for the Committee, respondent no.2, argues that this was not only the basis for passing the impugned order, but it was a case of fraud, interpolation and other serious irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in obtaining the certificate which came to light subsequently. However, he does not dispute the fact that the report dated 24.9.2008 was also the basis for cancellation of the certificate and passing of the order dated 29.9.2008. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 776] contended that even if it is assumed that copy of the report was not furnished, even then the impugned order cannot be set aside as there was sufficient material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had obtained the certificate by interpolation or fraud. She also argued that it was not absolutely essential in law to furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. 3. We are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent no.5 that though there was a copy -: 3 :- of the report dated 24.9.2008, it was not necessary to furnish the same to the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee has specifically relied upon this report. The report records findings which are quite serious and even indicates that the petitioner had interpolated the document and had committed other irregularities in obtaining the certificate. Thus, this document is a vital document which ought to have been furnished to the petitioner and non-furnishing of this document has caused apparent prejudice to the petitioner. We may also notice that the hearing admittedly was closed on 20.9.2008 while the report dated 24.9.2008 was dealt with and taken into consideration by the concerned authorities. The decision in the case of P.D.Agrawal relied upon by the learned counsel does not help the respondent no.5 inasmuch as the Supreme Court was concerned with compliance of the directions contained in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case in relation to cases which were decided or orders passed prior to coming into force of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that non-furnishing of such material document which has been taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee has caused prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, it is equally true that in the case -: 4 :- of fraud and misrepresentation, the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should balance the equity and should not deflect the Court orders in favour of the petitioner whose conduct is seriously under cloud. In these circumstances, we direct the Scrutiny Committee to provide post-decisional hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter finally and expeditiously. As the order dated 29.9.2008 has already taken effect, the post-decisional hearing would meet the ends of justice. Let a copy of the inquiry report dated 24.9.2008 be furnished to the counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the day and the petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 23.12.2008 at 11.00 a.m. and the authority will pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. Liberty to the petitioner to file his comments to the report dated 24.9.2008. Needless to record that the authority will be free to consider all the relevant material, inclining the report dated 24.9.2008, which are on record and pass appropriate orders expeditiously to avoid any prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner will file reply or comments to the report prior to the date of hearing. In the event of default, the benefit of this order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. We do direct that the original records relating to the present inquiry shall be filed before the Scrutiny Committee and the report, if -: 5 :- asked for, may be shown to the petitioner. All other records have been seen and dealt with by the petitioner in the earlier proceedings and their repetition would not be necessary. 5. Writ Petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.