Allowed

Komalsing Diwansing Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2004WP/9524/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that in light of the decision in Sunil Murlidhar Thakur, conditional validity certificates imposed on Thakur Scheduled Tribe members would not survive. Directed the scrutiny committee to delete the condition and issue the certificate within two months.

What did the court decide?

Scrutiny Committee directed to delete the condition and issue caste validity certificate to the petitioner within two months.

Komalsing Diwansing Thakur Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 Writ Petition No. 9524 of 2004

¶3

 Komalsing Diwansing Thakur ..Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

 1. State of Maharashtra
 and another ..Respondents

¶6

 Shri R.K.Mendadkar for petitioner
 Shri C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶7

CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ
14h December,2004

¶8

P.C.

¶9

 1. Rule. Respondents waive service.

¶10

 2. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶11

 3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the

¶12

 Constitution of India. Petitioners pray for writ
 of mandamus directing respondent no.2 Committee to
 forthwith withdraw the condition imposed inthe
 order validating the petitioner’s claim to Thakur
 Scheduled Tribe.

¶13

 4. We have heard Shri Mendadkar, learned Counsel
 appearing for petitioner and Shri Sonawane, A.G.P.
 appearing for respondents.

¶14

 5. It is not disputed that petitioner belongs to

¶15

 Thakur Tribe Notified vide Presidential
 Notification issued under Article 342(1) of the
 Constitution of India. It appears that petitioner
 has been issued caste certificate by competent
 authority. However, for claiming benefits
 conferred on reserved categories, caste certificate
 of the petitioner was referred for verification and
 scrutiny of respondent no.2 Committee. It is also
 not in dispute that relying upon materials produced
 by the petitionr as well as perusing the vigilance
 report, the caste certificate has been held to be
 valid. However, while holding that the claim of
 the petitioner is valid, caste scrutiny committee
 imposed a condition that validity certificate be
 issued subject to decision of this Court in a
 matter remitted back to this Court by the Supreme
 Court i.e. the case of Sunil Murlidhar Thakur.

¶16

 5. We need not consider the issue as to whether a
 conditional validity certificate can be issued by
 the Committee or not in this case in asmuch as
 Counsel appearing for parties are agreedd that the
 condition imposed by the respondent no.2 committee
 would not survive. Writ Petition No.3153 of 1996
 filed by Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. Vs.
 State of Maharashtra has been decided by us and the
 order of scrutiny committee has been quashed and
 set aside. Sunil Murlidhar Thakur also belongs to

¶17

 Thakur, Scheduled Tribe and the Committee has been

¶18

 directed to issue caste validity certificate in his
 favour by our order dated 4th October, 2004. In
 the light of the decision in the case of Sunil
 Murlidhar Thakur, the condition imposed by
 respondent no.2 Committee in case of petitioners
 would not survive. It is held that petitioners are
 entitled to caste validity certificate without any

¶19

 condition. The scrutiny committee is directed to
 delete the condition and issue caste validity
 certificate in prescribed form in favour of
 petitioner within a period of two months from
 today.

¶20

 5. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with

¶21

 no order as to costs.

Komalsing Diwansing Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komalsing Diwansing Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malti Radhacharan Karotia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunita Rajaram Bhamare Vs the President/Secretary, Maharashtra Vidya Prasarak Mandal, and Ors.

Alka Shivram Pokharkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Laxman Dhokte Vs the Maharashtra Council of Indian Medicine and Anr.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Nirmala Tukaram Bankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.