Allowed

Sanjay Datta @ Dattatray Ratnaparkhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2011WP/2854/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court addressed a writ petition challenging a delay of over one and a half years by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in verifying the petitioner's caste claim. The Bench relied on a Division Bench judgment to hold that such delay justified quashing the order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 9-3-2011 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Committee with a direction to dispose of the case within two months.

Sanjay Datta @ Dattatray Ratnaparkhe Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP No.2854 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011

¶4

*	Sanjay s/o Datta @ Dattatraya Ratnaparkhe	) )
	Age 35 years,	)
	Occupation : Service, R/o Flat No.B-1, Parvati Apartment, Padampura, Aurangabad.	) ) ) ).. Petitioner.
	Versus
1)	The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.	) ) ) ) )
2)	The Scheduled Castes, VJNT, Other Backwad Classes and Special Backwsard Category Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Division Aurangabad at Latur.	) ) ) ) ) ) )
		)
3)	The Competent Authority & Taluka Executive Magistrate, Nanded.	) ) )
		)
4)	The Marathwada Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Through its Secretary, C/o Deogiri College of Arts, Commerce & Science, Aurangabad.	) ) ) ) ) ) )Respondents
5)	Principal, Deogiri College of Arts, Commerce & Science, Aurangabad.	) ) ) )

¶5

2 WP No.2854 of 2011

¶6

Sshri. Monish Nilwant, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶7

Shri. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶9

DATE 14^th DECEMBER 2011

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.):

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith.

¶13

The petitioner’s caste claim was being verified

¶14

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Committee heard the matter finally on 13-8-2009 and the matter was reserved for orders on the said date. The Committee thereafter decided the matter on 9^th March 2011 i.e. after near about one and half years.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Division Bench (Coram: B.R. Gavai and M.T. Joshi, JJ.) dated 8^th

¶16

3 WP No.2854 of 2011

¶17

September 2011 in Writ Petition Nos.1264 and 2776 of 2011 in support of his submission that long delay in the date of hearing and the date on which the judgment is pronounced is a sufficient ground for quashing and setting aside the order.

¶18

We have called the original record. We find that the Committee ought to have delivered the judgment within a reasonable time frame after it concluded hearing and reserved the matter for judgment. Early disposal in such cases is warranted because it requires to go through the record, the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the parties.

¶19

In the facts of the case, we, therefore, find that the fresh opportunity is required to be given so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on that count.

¶20

The impugned order dated 9-3-2011 passed by respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 22^nd December 2011 at 11.00 a.m. The

¶21

4 WP No.2854 of 2011

¶22

petitioner is entitled to put up arguments before the Committee on the available record. The Committee shall dispose of the case on its own merit on the basis of the record within two months from 22-12-2011. All issues are

¶23

kept open.

¶24

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Authenticated copy be given to the counsel for the parties.

¶25

Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶26

rsl

Sanjay Datta @ Dattatray Ratnaparkhe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Datta @ Dattatray Ratnaparkhe 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balaji Nivrutti Hambarde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Godawari Garments Magaswargiya Karmachari and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Aditya Prkash Rnglani Natural Guardian Sau Shalini Pl Ranglani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangameshwar Sugar Limited through Chairman Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Vishwanath Raghunath Dubukwad and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rukhmin Raghunath Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.