JUDGMENT : B.R. GAVAI, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Validity Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.2 by respondent no.1 certifying that she belongs to 'Kunbhi' caste, which is notified as Other Backward Class. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Validity Certificate is issued without following the mandate of holding an inquiry through Vigilance Cell. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangesh Nivtutti Kashid and Others .vs. The District Collector, Satara and Others reported in (2012) 5 ALLMR 759 has held thus: “Thus even if the State Government enacts a procedure to replace the directions contained in Madhuri Patil's case, the procedure cannot dispense with the core requirement of obtaining vigilance cell report. If such a procedure is enacted by the State, it cannot be termed as 'proper' procedure as contemplated by the Act. It is emphasised at the cost of repetition that the directions issued in the Madhuri Patil's case cannot be viewed with pedantic approach and must be understood and employed in its true sense and spirit. The said directions are issued for the protection of the weaker section in the country and they must be employed strictly. In other words, these directions are the least the State Governments are expected to incorporate while framing a law on the subject. If the States want to employ additional safeguards to protect the rights of the backward class they are permitted to do so but it is doubtful that the State Government can prescribe a procedure of lower standards of scrutiny than the one laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil. This requirement is emphasised in the decision of Dayaram. “5. It could thus be clearly seen that the Division Bench in unequivocal terms has held that when the State Government enacts a procedure to replace the directions contained in Madhuri Patil's case, the procedure cannot dispense with the core requirement of obtaining vigilance cell report. 6. In that view of the matter, the Validity Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.2 without holding Vigilance Cell inquiry would not be sustainable in law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The Validity Certificate dt.18.11.2015 issued in favour of respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. 7. 6. In that view of the matter, the Validity Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.2 without holding Vigilance Cell inquiry would not be sustainable in law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The Validity Certificate dt.18.11.2015 issued in favour of respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside. 7. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.1 for considering the claim of respondent no.2 afresh and in accordance with law. Needless to state that respondent no.1 shall follow the mandate of inquiry by the Vigilance Cell before passing any order. 8. Taking into consideration that respondent no.2 is holding electoral Office on the basis of her claim of belonging to Other Backward Class, the respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter within a period of three months from today.