Dismissed

Khilonmal Jumdomal Basantani and Anr. v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Oct 2008WP/7011/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a validated Caste Validity Certificate was dismissed as misconceived. The Court held that since the query regarding the respondents' caste had been conclusively settled by lower courts and the Supreme Court, re-aggitation was not permitted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as misconceived.

Khilonmal Jumdomal Basantani and Anr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7011 OF 2008

¶5

DIST.: NASHIK

¶6

Khilonmal Jumdomal Basantani & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Divison, & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar i/by Mr.Sathyam Acharya for the Petitioners

¶10

Mr. A.L. Patki, Special Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶11

CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 16, 2008

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

This petition has been filed, seeking direction to respondent No.1-Committee to exercise power under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and revoke the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6.

¶14

¶15

It appears that the petitioners had purchased land from respondents No. 5 and 6, and later on, respondents No. 5 and 6 claimed that they belong to Scheduled Tribes, and as such, the sale of the land was invalid. Therefore, the petitioners started agitating the matter with regard to the caste of respondents No. 5 and 6. The Caste Certificate issued to respondents No. 5 and 6 was validated by the Committee by its order dated 9^th May, 2000. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition against the order of the Committee, being Writ Petition No. 9216 of 2005, which was dismissed by this Court on 23^rd January, 2006. The petitioners moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed on 30^th November, 2007. Therefore, the question as to whether respondents No. 5 and 6 belong to a particular caste or not is concluded, and it cannot be allowed to be re-agitated again and again.

¶16

This Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.

¶17

BILAL NAZKI, J.

¶18

J.H. BHATIA, J.

Khilonmal Jumdomal Basantani and Anr. v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khilonmal Jumdomal Basantani and Anr. v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Ors.

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

Rekha Pandurang Sonawdekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Electricals Limited Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Govind Laxman Powar(Decd.)by Lrs.- Anil Govind Powar and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Kallappa Maruti Gundali Vs Satish Baburao Pawar and Ors.

Murlidhar Shankar Munde Vs City Engineer - Bhivandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ganpat Dhondu Chavan and Ors. Vs Thane Municipal Corpn. and Anr.