Dismissed

Malti Ashok Vanjara Nee Malti Revaji Rajput v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2007WP/2617/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court in Civil Appeal Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.2617 of 2007 dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking to include her caste 'Dubli' in Schedule Tribe entries. The court held that 'Dubli' is not synonymous enough with 'Dubla' to be added to Entry 16 of the 1976 Order, refusing to read anything into the entry not explicitly present.

What did the court decide?

The petition impugning the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Security Committee was dismissed.

2. The petitioner has impugned the order dt.8.1.07 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Security Committee Konkan Division, Thane in Appeal Case no.246 of 2006. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Caste Dubli for which Caste Certificate has been issued by the Executive Magistrate, Vasai on 8.7.91. In the vigilance enquiry, it was found that the petitioner belongs to caste "Hindu

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s caste Dubli is recognised as Schedule Tribe though it does not find place in the entry as appearing in Part IX of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (No.108 of 1976) at S.No.16. The entry at Sr.No.16 reads as "Dubla, Talavia, Halpati.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste ’Dubla’ and ’Dubli’ are synonymous and that it has been held so by the very Caste Scrutiny Committee and there are catena of decisions of this court on this issue which supports the contention of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner admits that she belongs to the Caste ’Dubli’ and that is her case that it has been found that she belongs to caste ’Rajput’. Therefore, atleast the petitioner’s caste does not find place in the schedule notifying Schedule Tribe in Maharashtra. The contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the caste ’Dubli’ comes within Entry No.16 as it is synonymous with the caste ’Dubla’ cannot be accepted as no one has an authority to read something into the entry which is not there.

6. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue that the castes ’Dubla’ and ’Dubli’ are synonymous has no meaning as now it is a settled law as pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind Katware reported in 2001 (1) SCC 4 that the executive or for that reason any authority cannot substitute, add or amend any entry. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the

Malti Ashok Vanjara Nee Malti Revaji Rajput v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malti Ashok Vanjara Nee Malti Revaji Rajput 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

Smt.Sunita Laxmanrao Shinde and Others Vs Ashwini Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Others

M/S. Ashiyana Sales Corporation Vs 1. Mr. Nivruti Baloba Bhegade and Ors.

Ms. Mohini Suyog Dahiwadkar Vs Mr. Suyog Vasudeo Ddahiwadkar

M/S. German Remedies Ltd. Now Known as Zydus Cadilla Health Care Ltd. Vs Mr. Madhukar Bhiva Panchal

Bdh Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs United Packaging Industries

Mr Amit Kumar Virendra Prasad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.