Remanded

Pramod Prabhakar Ahire v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Dec 2006WP/7455/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's caste certificate. The Court held that the prior grant of a certificate to the petitioner's sister was ineffectual in supporting the respondent's action against the petitioner, as each claim stands independently. The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to receive a certificate w

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order and direction to issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner within two weeks.

Pramod Prabhakar Ahire Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

Writ Petition No.7455 of 2005

¶3

Pramod Prabhakar Ahire . Petitioner. Vs

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.Malvankar Asst. Govt.Pleader for respondents

¶6

CORAM: H.S. BEDI, C.J. , & V.M.KANADE, J.

¶7

DATE: 12^th December, 2006.

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 3^rd October 2005 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committeerespondent no. 2 herein invalidating the caste certificate dated 14^th April, 1993 Exhibit A to the petition whereby he has been identified as belonging to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The case of the petitioner is that his sister Kum Ratna Prabhakar Ahire had applied for such certificate on 18^th May, 2005 and the same had been granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, and there was no justification in invalidating his claim as belonging to the same category. The respondents in their reply have given an explanation which we find completely unwarranted. In paras 12 and 13 it has been averred as under:

¶10

“12. With reference to the para no.17 of the writ petition I say that the then Members of the Committee did not adopt the view taken by the present Committee Members and therefore the caste claim of the petitioner's real sister validated by the then Committee.

¶11

With reference to the para 18 of the writ petition I say that I repeat and reiterate that merely the validity is granted to the sister of the petitioner does not amount a ground for validation of subsequent caste claim to the nearest blood relatives. Each claimant has to stand on his/her own legs which is categorically stated in the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 in the case if Madhuri Patil vs State”.

¶12

We are of the opinion that this observation is clearly unacceptable and show that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had not done its job with an open mind. The learned Asst. Government Pleader has, however, drawn our attention to para 21 of the reply to argue that the Scrutiny Committee had taken an independent decision in the matter and that the documents produced by the petitioner did not justify his claim. We find this plea untenable as it has not been denied that Kumari Ratna

¶13

Prabhakar Ahire was the real sister of the petitioner. We have therefore no option but to quash the impugned order Exhibit A and direct that the petitioner shall have the costs of this petition as well which are quantified at Rs.1000/- to be paid by the respondents. We further direct the Scrutiny Committee to issue the caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

¶14

Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE. V.M.KANADE, J.

Pramod Prabhakar Ahire v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Prabhakar Ahire v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Citizens for a Just a Society Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

K.Makes (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ulhasnagar and Anr.

Ranjita Uday Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vatsala Trimbakrao Naikwadi Vs the Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Katale Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nitin Bhaskar Tamber Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.