Allowed

Uttam S/O. Vikram Dandewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2009WP/6760/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad quashed the rejection of a caste certificate application. The court found that prima facie evidence of belonging to the Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe existed and directed the lower authority to issue the certificate subject to verification.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of Divisional Scrutiny Committee and order of Sub-Divisional Officer quashed; petitioner issued caste certificate of Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe subject to verification.

Uttam S/O. Vikram Dandewad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6760 OF 2009

¶4

Uttam S/o.Vikram Dandewad,

¶5

Age-19 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Ghungarala, Taluka : Naigaon (Kh.)

District : Nanded

PETITIONER

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

Through its Secretary,

¶11

Tribal Development Department,

¶12

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶13

The Scheduled Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director. (R)

¶14

Aurangabad.

¶15

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Degloor, Tq.Degloor,

Dist. Nanded

RESPONDENTS

Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, learned counsel for respondent no.2

¶20

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND

¶21

A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶22

DATE : 09/10/2009

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.)

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad in Appeal No.207/2009 vide judgment and order dated 30/06/2009 by which the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and the order passed by The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 02/04/2009 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate was rejected.

¶27

At the outset, the facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as the petitioner herein has filed an application for issuance of caste certificate as he claimed that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe on 23/06/2008 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. Alongwith the said application, the petitioner has produced documentary evidence including the caste validity certificate issued in favour of his cousin Manohar Mahajan. He has also filed affidavit of the said caste validity certificate holder and alongwith the said affidavit, genealogy was produced showing the inter-se relation between the caste validity certificate holder and the petitioner. It appears that this documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and

¶28

¶29

vide his order dated 02/04/2009, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of the caste certificate. It appears that being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad. It further appears that vide judgment and order dated 30/06/2009, the said appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad and confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor vide order dated 02/04/2009.

¶30

4. Heard respective counsels for the parties.

¶31

During the course of submissions across the bar, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner towards the caste validity certificate issued in favour of cousin of the petitioner by name Manohar Mahajan. His affidavit is filed and genealogy is produced alongwith the said affidavit. This genealogy clearly established that the father of the caste validity certificate holder and the father of the present applicant are real brothers and if it is so, this is a prima facie evidence to show the caste of the petitioner applicant that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. It further appears that this documentary evidence, affidavit and the genealogy produced alongwith the affidavit filed by the caste validity certificate holder was not properly appreciated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as well as the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad in the appeal preferred against the

¶32

¶33

order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and erroneously not only rejected the application by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, but the appeal was also dismissed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad. If it is so, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad in appeal as well as the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly we quash and set aside the judgment passed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad, as well as the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, challenged in the present writ petition. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue caste certificate as the petitioner belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe forthwith.

¶34

Needless to say that the caste certificate issued would be subject to verification by the competent Scrutiny Committee.

¶35

Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs.

¶36

(A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶37

khs/OCT 2009/wp6760-09

Uttam S/O. Vikram Dandewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam S/O. Vikram Dandewad v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Shaukat Hussain and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Devgiri College Boys Hostel Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pramod S/O. Laxmanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and or.

M/S Premchand Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Babasaheb Vithal Bhalerao Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sandip S/O. Nagorao Dandewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.