Allowed

Vikas Kamaji Gadge v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jun 2010WP/2144/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowing writ petitions and quashing orders rejecting Scheduled Tribe certificate claims. Held that petitioners eligible for certificate as Koli Mahadev based on cousin's certificate without detailed genealogical verification at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Sub Divisional Officer directed to issue Scheduled Tribe certificates to petitioners as Koli Mahadev forthwith.

Vikas Kamaji Gadge Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2010

¶4

Vikas S/o Kamaji Gadge, Age : 20 Years, Occu. : Education, R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded, Through power of attorney holder, Gangadhar S/o Ganpatrao Kalyankar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. .. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. .. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶10

¶11

WITH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 2145 OF 2010

¶13

Gangaprasad S/o Sambhaji Gadge, Age : Minor, Occu. : Education, R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded, Through power of attorney holder, Gangadhar S/o Ganpatrao Kalyankar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. .. .. Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶16

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶17

The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. .. .. Respondents

¶18

Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri U. S. Malte, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶19

¶20

WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO. 2147 OF 2010

¶22

Shubham S/o Jagannath Gadge, Age : Minor, Occu. : Education, R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded, Through power of attorney holder, Gangadhar S/o Ganpatrao Kalyankar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. .. .. Petitioner

¶23

Versus

¶24

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶25

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶26

The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. .. .. Respondents

¶27

Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri R. P. Phatake, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶28

¶29

WITH

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 2148 OF 2010

¶31

Kum. Vinita D/o Kamaji Gadge, Age : Minor, Occu. : Education, R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded, Through power of attorney holder, Gangadhar S/o Ganpatrao Kalyankar, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o At-post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. .. .. Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶34

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad.

¶35

The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. .. .. Respondents

¶36

Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶37

¶38

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND

¶39

N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶40

DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010.

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per P. V. HARDAS, J. ] :

¶42

. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, these petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment at the stage of admission.

¶43

The petitioners by these petitions impugned the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and consequential orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee in appeal rejecting the claim of the petitioners as belonging to Koli Mahadev scheduled tribel. The petitioners who are relatives interse, relied upon the certificate issued to another cousin of the petitioners.

¶44

Notice had been issued in the present writ petitions in order to test the genuineness of the genealogy which was produced by the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions states that, the genuineness of the genealogy which is produced on record is not disputed. It is however, urged before us that the grand father of the present

¶45

¶46

petitioners had sought a claim as belonging to Koli caste and not as Koli Mahadev. According to us since the cousin of the petitioners has been issued certificate as belonging to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe, the petitioners are entitled to issued with the said certificate. Whether their claims as belonging to Koli Mahadev are genuine or not would be decided by the Scrutiny Committee when the certificates referred for on the basis of verification.

¶47

In that light, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor is directed to issue forthwith certificates to the petitioners as belonging to Koli Mahadev, scheduled tribe.

¶48

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶49

order as to costs.

¶50

[ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.]

¶51

[ P. V. HARDAS, J.]

¶52

bsb/June 10

Vikas Kamaji Gadge v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kamaji Gadge v. the State of Mah 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

Kaushalyabai Karbhari Bangar Vs Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

Yogiraj Gangadhar Kumbhar and Ors. Vs Navnathganpati Bhandvale and Ors.

Aryan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

Champalal Kanhayalal Khinvsara and Anr. Vs Ramdas Sampt Nade and Ors.

Rajendra Pannalal Gupta Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Subhash Rabhaji Barde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.