Allowed

Aditya Anil Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC5 May 2010WP/2831/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that a caste certificate issued to the father is sufficient evidence for issuing a caste certificate to the son. The petition was allowed, quashing the rejection order and directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue the certificate.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders and directed Sub-Divisional Officer to issue caste certificate as Thakur–Scheduled Tribe.

Aditya Anil Salunke Vs the State of Mah and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2831 OF 2010

¶4

ADITYA ANIL SALUNKE AGE MINOR, OCC. EDUCATION, R/O NANDGAON, TQ. AMBAJOGAI, DISTRICT : BEED AT PRESENT MAYUR PARK, HARSOOL, AURANGABAD DISTRICT : AURANGABAD THROUGH FATHER & NATURAL GUARDIAN – ANIL GOVIND SALUNKE AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, AS ABOVE.

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY TO TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA , MUMBAI.

¶8

THE SCHEDULE TRIBE CASTE CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, AURANGABAD THROUGH ITS DY. DIRECTION (R), AURANGABAD.

¶9

THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AMBAJOGAI, DIST. BEED ..... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.K.Tambe, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State.

¶12

Mr. P.S.Patil, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶13

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ.

¶14

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/05/2010

¶15

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶17

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

¶18

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the Order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambajogai dated 7/5/2008 and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in Appeal, dated 19/5/2009.

¶19

The petitioner, who was desirous of obtaining the certificate as belonging to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe, submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambajogai. Amongst the various documents on which the petitioner placed reliance, was a document i.e. the caste certificate issued to the father of the petitioner. The petitioner also placed reliance upon the caste certificates issued to his cousines and uncle. The Sub Divisional Officer, Ambajogai rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not filed documents pertaining to the caste of his grand father, etc. and, therefore, the petitioner erred in not establishing that he belongs to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee, in appeal, confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambajogai.

¶20

¶21

According to us, at this preliminary stage of considering as to whether the candidate belongs to the caste for which the claim is made, the fact that the father of the candidate has been issued with the caste certificate, would be sufficient material/evidence for issuance of the caste certificate to the concerned candidate. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted the caste certificate issued to his father. In that light of the matter, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed.

¶22

We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Ambajogai to forthwith issue the caste certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe.

¶23

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶24

order as to costs.

¶25

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ]

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

knp/WP 2831.10 ( J )

Aditya Anil Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Anil Salunke 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Niphad Sahakari Sakhr Karkhana Ltd. Bhausaheb Nagar through Finance Manager S N Thakare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vikas Dnyandeo Warke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vikas Dnyandeo Warke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Ganpat Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Uchatam Krishi Utpanna Bajar Samiti Majalgaon through Its Secetaryd B Phuke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shamprasad Vishwanath Dev Vs Mah State Electricity Distribution Co. and Anr.