JUDGMENT : B.R. GAVAI, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by order dated 25 September 2013, granted in favour of Respondent No.3 certifying that she belongs to Mochi Scheduled Caste. It appears that during the pendency of the Petition, the Petitioner has also made a complaint before the Respondent Scrutiny Committee and the said complaint came to be rejected vide order dated 5 February 2016. By way of an amendment, the said order is also challenged. 3. Mr. Mardikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that, the perusal of the documents would reveal that Respondent No.3 has been granted validity certificate even before she had applied for the same. He further submits that, Respondent No.3 has relied on the documents issued in favour of her father by a school in the year 1958, which school was not in existence, at that point of time. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the certificate is granted in favour of Respondent No.3, without even holding an inquiry through Vigilance Cell. Therefore, he submits that, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Ms. Shastri, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State Government submits that, the Scrutiny Committee has power, under Rule 17(6) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Denotified Tribes (Vimuktajati), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class and Special Backward Category Regulation and Issuance of Verification of Caste Certificate Rules 2012, to grant validity certificate, without undertaking any inquiry through Vigilance Cell, if the Committee is satisfied that the candidate, upon the documents placed before it, is belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 5. Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 on the contrary, submits that, as a matter of fact, the Petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee by filing a complaint however, he remained absent on various dates and as such, order dated 5 February 2016 came to be passed by the Scrutiny Committee. He further submits that the Petitioner has no locus in the present matter. 6. In so far as the issue of locus is concerned, the Apex Court has held that the issue regarding locus cannot be restricted in the matter, regarding a status of a Caste and Tribe. He further submits that the Petitioner has no locus in the present matter. 6. In so far as the issue of locus is concerned, the Apex Court has held that the issue regarding locus cannot be restricted in the matter, regarding a status of a Caste and Tribe. It has been held that, if a candidate claims a status of a particular reserved category, though he or she is not entitled to that, a citizen would be entitled to knock the door of the Court and seek redressal. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the preliminary objection and reject the same. 7. Insofar as the submission made by the learned AGP that, the Committee has power to grant validity certificate without undertaking an inquiry through Vigilance Cell is concerned, no doubt that such a power exists on the statute. However, it may not be out of place to mention that day in and day out, we come across various cases, wherein the Scrutiny Committee denies the validity certificate to a daughter even when, the validity certificate is granted to the father, on the ground that the daughter has failed the inquiry through the Vigilance Cell. We fail to understand as to how, in the present case, the Scrutiny Committee has been magnanimous enough to accept the contention of Respondent No.3 that, she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, as being ipse dixit, without there being a single validity in favour of her close relatives. To say the least, we find that the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee in granting the validity certificate in favour of Respondent No.3, without even undertaking Vigilance Cell inquiry, is completely extraordinary. 8. In any case, we find that, since the validity certificate granted in favour of Respondent No.3 has been granted without following the procedure as prescribed by law i.e. without calling for the report of Vigilance cell, the same is not sustainable in law. We therefore, quash and set aside the same. We direct the Respondent Scrutiny Committee which is seized with the matter to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as, the Respondent No.3 and also give an opportunity to the parties to place all the relevant documents in support of their respective claims and to take decision in accordance with law. 9. We direct the Respondent Scrutiny Committee which is seized with the matter to give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as well as, the Respondent No.3 and also give an opportunity to the parties to place all the relevant documents in support of their respective claims and to take decision in accordance with law. 9. We are informed that the Vigilance Cell inquiry has already been conducted twice. The parties would also be at liberty to submit their objections to the Vigilance Cell enquiry, if they so desire. 10. Needless to state that if the Scrutiny Committee finds that any further Vigilance Cell inquiry is required to be conducted, the same shall be done. 11. The parties to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 10 July 2017, and the Scrutiny Committee shall proceed with the matter expeditiously. 12. The Scrutiny Committee shall conclude the proceedings before it, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of three months from today. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment would be granted to either of the parties and the Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to draw an adverse inference, if any of the parties indulge into such delaying tactics. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 14. There shall be no order as to costs.