CHIMMAY SUBHASH ERRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE .

(2.) BY consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he was not supplied with any copy of the said vigilance report upon which the Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance. Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the principles of natural justice were violated. Shri Deshmukh also drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (A.I.R.1995 Supreme Court 94) wherein the Supreme Court has prescribed the time-bound schedule as well as certain procedure to speed up the verification of caste certificate in a proper and fair manner. Sub-para (6) of para 12 of the report contains the direction which is relevant for our purpose. It reads as under: