Allowed

Dattatraya Angadrao Tambawade v. the Schedules Tribe Certificate Vertification Committee Aurangabad and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2009WP/3512/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim. The court directed the Committee to decide the caste claim afresh within six months after ensuring a fresh opportunity to establish social status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee was quashed; matter remanded to the Committee for a fresh decision within six months of 7.12.2009.

Dattatraya Angadrao Tambawade Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3512 OF 2009

¶4

Dattatraya s/o Angadrao Tambawade, Age : 28 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Chera, Tq. Jalkot, District Latur ..PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1, The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad

¶7

The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Chandrapur Division, Chandrapur, District - Chandrapur ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1; Mr A.D. Wange, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶9

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ

¶10

DATE : 5th October 2009

¶11

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ]

¶13

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶14

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee, dated 9.1.2009 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadv" - Scheduled Tribe.

¶15

It appears that the claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe came to be referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee by the Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation, Chandrapur. In support of the claim as belongi8ng to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner tendered several documents which are enlisted in the order of the Committee as document nos.1 to 10. The report of the vigilance cell was obtained and a copy thereof came to be furnished to the petitioner. The proceedings before the Committee thereafter were fixed for hearing on 16.12.2008. The petitioner appeared

¶16

¶17

on that day and sought adjournment by an application dated 16.12.2008 and had also tendered copy of the first information report wherein the name of the grandfather is disclosed as one of the offenders and his caste is recorded as Koli Mahadev. The Committee rejected the aforesaid application as the petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity for producing the said document.

¶18

With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee. Upon perusal of the said findings it is clear to us that there was no contra evidence in respect of the claim of the petitioner. The document which the petitioner has produced is an old document i.e. the copy of the first information report. According to us, an opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner for establishing his social status as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled Tribe. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and remit the matter back to the Committee for a decision afresh.

¶19

We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. We accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the

¶20

¶21

respondent Scrutiny Committee on 7.12.2009 and further direct the Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months of 7.12.2009 in accordance with law.

¶22

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶23

order as to costs.

¶24

( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

amj/wp3512.09

¶26

Dattatraya Angadrao Tambawade v. the Schedules Tribe Certificate Vertification Committee Aurangabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Angadrao Tambawade v. the Schedules Tribe Certificate Vertification Committee Aurangabad and Anr.

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

Prakash Kashinath Hire and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwanath Baburao Wanve Vs Talathi, Talathi Sajja Patoda Dist. Beed

Pandurang Malram Bolewad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Subhash Ratansing Maher Vs State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Mangilal S/O. Bhikchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Prakash S/O. Bakrubhoi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.