JUDGMENT R. C. CHAVAN, J. :- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 1 - the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15-2-2007 invalidating the petitioner's claim as belonging to Momin (OBC) and the consequential cancellation of his membership of Municipal Council, Yavatmal, on the ground that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not caused an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. 3. In para 10 of our order dated 23-3-2007, we had made the following observations: "However, we would like to know the stand of the Government, whether the Government prefers to have Vigilance Cell being associated with committees for scrutiny of claims of non-tribals as well and if inquiry by Vigilance Cell and its report would be required to be placed before the Committee. For this purpose, we inquired from the learned A.G.P., who thought it necessary to take instructions before making any statement and for this we grant him two weeks." The learned A.G.P. has filed on record a letter addressed to him by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra in response to our query. By this letter dated 25-4-2007, bearing No. CBC-12/2007/CR-93/BCW-V, the Deputy Secretary Shri N. N. Bhadikar had informed the learned AGP as under: 'This Department is of the view that it is essential to have Vigilance Cell being associated with Committees for Scrutiny of Caste Claims of non tribal also. However, the report of Vigilance Cell is not called for by the Committee in each and every case. The procedure of scrutiny of caste claims is of the nature of quasi-judicial as provided in the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 - Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, De-Nomadic Tribes (Vimukta Jati), Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Categories (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. If the Committees are not satisfied about the documentary proof submitted by applicant in support of the claims then they may feel it necessary to carry out further inquiry into such claims by visiting the nature places of the applicants. In such cases the Committee may refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying out home enquiry." 4. If the Committees are not satisfied about the documentary proof submitted by applicant in support of the claims then they may feel it necessary to carry out further inquiry into such claims by visiting the nature places of the applicants. In such cases the Committee may refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying out home enquiry." 4. It is not in dispute that the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee had not referred the petitioner's case for an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell, as may be seen from the impugned order dated 15-2-2007. Since the learned AGP has now conveyed that the Government of Maharashtra in its Social Justice and Special Assistance Department is of the view that the Vigilance Cell enquiry is necessary for scrutiny of caste claims of non-tribals too It would be necessary for respondent No.1 Committee to enquire afresh into the petitioner's caste claim. 5. In view of this, the impugned order invalidating the petitioner's caste claim passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee on 15-2-2007 and the consequential disqualification of petitioner's membership of the Municipal Council, Yavatmal, are quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 Committee is directed to enquire into the caste claim of the petitioner afresh after conducting a vigilance cell enquiry as indicated in the Government's letter dated 25-4-2007. The Committee shall upon completion of the vigilance cell enquiry cause a copy of the vigilance cell report to be served upon the petitioner and give him an adequate opportunity to rebut the same should the vigilance cell report be against the petitioner. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.