Dismissed

Premraj Balraj Bhandari v. the Scheduled Tribe Caste Cer Scrutiny Thr Sec and Another

Bombay HC11 Dec 2007WP/3853/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's ST caste claim. It upheld the Committee's conclusion that documents showing 'Telgu Mannewar' do not prove ST status, as 'Telgu' denotes language, not caste, and no enquiry jurisdiction existed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's claim of ST caste invalidity confirmed; no relief granted; Writ Petition disposed of.

Premraj Balraj Bhandari Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3853/2006 (Prejraj Balraj Bhandari VERSUS the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee thro. its Secretary & another )

¶4

- - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

- - - - -- Mr. Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Puranik, counsel for the R-1.

¶6

CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2007.

¶7

Heard Mr. Parsodkar, the learned counsel for

¶8

the petitioner and Mr. Puranik, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶9

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.06.2006 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated.

¶10

Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. The observations made in sub paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 reads thus---

¶11

¶12

“In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the entries made in the documents furnished by the applicant, and the documents obtained by the vigilance Cell, must have to be read as it is, the caste entries in respect of applicant and his relatives are shown as Telgu Mannewar, Hindu Telgu Mannewar, Telangi whereas relevant entry in Presidential order shows that caste Mannewar is included in Scheduled Tribe Category and not Telgu Mannewar. It is not permissible for the caste Scrutiny Committee, Court or Tribunal to hold any enquiry and conclude that name of the caste mentioned in the various record is not correct since the word Telgu is referable to the language of the community and the word Mannewar is referable to the caste. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the name of the caste must be read as it is mentioned in the documents of the applicant vis-a-vis the relevant entry in Presidential order, otherwise it will result in interfering with the relevant entry in the Presidential Order and therefore his contention is not sustainable.”

¶13

In view of the above referred observations, it

¶14

is evident that the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his caste claim of his near relative do not demonstrate that the petitioner belong

¶15

to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe and since there is no jurisdiction vested in the Committee to conduct any

¶16

¶17

inquiry in this regard, the conclusion arrived at by the Committee is just and proper.

¶18

Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

JUDGE

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

APTE

Premraj Balraj Bhandari v. the Scheduled Tribe Caste Cer Scrutiny Thr Sec and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premraj Balraj Bhandari v. the Scheduled Tribe Caste Cer Scrutiny Thr Sec and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Agriculture Polymer Thru. Its Partner Vs Judge. Labour Court, Akola and 2 Ors.

Sant Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya Thru. Principal Vs State of Maha. and 2 Ors.

Kishor S/O Santoshrao Patil Vs the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission and 4 Ors.

Dnyan Sanwardhan Shikshan Sanstha Gondumari Thru. Its Jt. Secty. Vs Deputy. Director of Edu. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Rama Shirish Joshi Vs the Collector, Nagpur and 4 Ors.

Uday Shankarrao Alsi Vs the Controller of Examinations