Dismissed

Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2009RPW/20/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) disposed of a review petition and application for condonation of delay. It held that a migrant is not entitled to reservation benefits in the state of migration. Consequently, the review petition and the application were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the review petition are dismissed.

Priyanka Omprakash Panwar Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12 OF 2009
 WITH
 REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.734 OF 2009
 IN

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.5084 OF 2004

¶4

 Priyanka Omprakash Panwar )..Petitioner

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents

¶7

 ----

¶8

 Mr.A.V.Chatuphale for the petitioner.

¶9

 None for the respondents.

¶10

 ----

¶11

 Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ

¶12

 Date : 28.01.2009.

¶13

PC

¶14

 1. The petitioner herein had filed a petition
 before this Court challenging the decision of the
 Caste Scrutiny Committee. One of the reasons given
 by the Committee was the review applicant was a
 migrant from the State of Rajasthan (wrongly
 recorded as State of Madhya Pradesh in the

¶15

 judgment). The petitioner thereafter against the
 said judgment, moved by special leave to appeal
 which was withdrawn upon the statement made by the
 learned Counsel for the petitioner that he will move
 this Court.

¶16

 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the caste
 certificate could have been issued by the competent

¶17

 : 2 :

¶18

 authority in the state and when the caste
 certificate was issued, considering the judgment in
 Madhuri Patil V/s. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
 Development reported in 1994(6) SCC 241, the
 committee had to comply with the directions issued
 by the Supreme Court at serial no.5 of paragraph-13.

¶19

 3. Firstly, the law is now settled in the case of
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V/s. Dean, Seth

¶20

G.S.Medical College,reported in (1990) 3 SCC130 as
 also in the judgment in the case of Action Committee
on issue of Caste Certificate to SCs and STs in the
State of Maharashtra V/s. Union of India reported
in (1994) 5SCC 244that migrant from another state
 is not entitled for the benefits of reservation in
 the state of migration and would be entitled to
 benefit of reservation as Scheduled Caste or
 Scheduled Tribe in the state of migration. Merely
 because a caste or tribe with the same nominclature
 may be notified as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
 Tribe in two states, that would not make a person so
 eligible in the state of migration. The petitioner
 would be entitled for reservation in the state of
 Rajasthan. In so far as Maharashtra is concerned,
 the petitioner has to compete with the other open
 category candidates.

¶21

 4. The Government of India have issued Circulars to
 avoid hardship to a person who may move from one

¶22

 : 3 :

¶23

 state to another, in the matter of issuance of caste
 certificate. It is then open to the competent
 authority to issue a caste certificate where the
 person ordinarily resides. This however, does not
 mean that such a person based on the certificate is
 entitled for reservation in the state of migration.

¶24

 5. Considering the above, in our opinion, there is
 no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the
 application for condonation of delay and also review
 petition are dismissed.

¶25

 (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)

Priyanka Omprakash Panwar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Omprakash Panwar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 2 Mumbai Vs M/S. Vidyut Metallics P. Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 2 Mumbai Vs Speciality Equipment Ltd. , Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 2 Mumbai Vs M/S. Vidyut Metallics P. Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income TAX-8 Mumbai Vs M/S. Citicorp Overseas Softwares Ltd. Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai Vs the Bombay Dyeing and Mfg.Co Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Mumbai Vs M/S. A.T.E. Enterprises Ltd. Mumbai