Sou.Manisha Baban Telange v. Sou.Nitu Anant Patekar alias Riya

Mr.C.G. Gavnekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. ... ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2010. P.C.

#1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the respondent No.1 that she belongs to Kunabi Other Backward Class is valid. It appears that as required by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the Scrutiny Committee had called for a report of the Vigilance Cell. The report of the Vigilance Cell was in favour of the respondent No.1. The Scrutiny Committee agreed with the

3.wp.9770-09 2 same and issued a validity certificate in favour of the respondent No.1. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case is clear that if the Vigilance Cell submits an opinion in favour of a candidate then nothing further is required to be done by the Scrutiny Committee unless the Committee has reason to disagree with the report of the Vigilance Cell.

#2. In our opinion, if the Scrutiny Committee, which consists of experts, finds no reason to defer with the opinion of the Vigilance Cell and, therefore, accepts that report and issues that certificate, then it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the order. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)