Allowed

Karnaveer Sheshrao Totwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2011WP/4119/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate. After the petitioner filed an affidavit showing the vaccination of his close blood relatives, including his father, brother, and sister, while the petition was pending, the Scrutiny Committee validated their claims. The Court set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.9.2002 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration within six months. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order

Karnaveer Sheshrao Totwad Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

WP 4119/02

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4119/2002

¶6

Karnaveer s/o Sheshrao Totwad, age 23 yrs., occu.student, r/o Umardari (Walli) Tq.Mukhed Dist.Nanded. ...Petitioner..

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra.

¶9

2] The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claim, Aurangabad. Through its Member Secretary.

¶10

3] The Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Mukhed. Tq.Mukhed Dist.Nanded.

¶11

4] The Dean, Lokmanya Tilak Medical College, Sayan, Mumbai. ...Respondents...

¶12

Shri S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3 & 4. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶13

WP 4119/02

¶14

¶15

CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE &

¶16

S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶17

DATE: 03.08.2011

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶20

2] In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged the order dated 25.9.2002 passed by respondent no.2 – scrutiny committee. By this order, the tribe certificate of the petitioner being Mannerwarlu – scheduled tribe, has been invalidated.

¶21

3] The petitioner has filed affidavit on 25.4.2011 stating that during pendency of the writ petition, the same scrutiny committee has validated the tribe claims of his close blood relatives including his real sister. After filing of this affidavit, the scrutiny committee on 21.7.2011 validated the tribe claims of the petitioner’s father Mr.Sheshrao Dattatraya Totwad and his real brother Mr.Shivkumar Sheshrao Totwad. The petitioner has also placed caste validity certificates issued in favour of his father and brother on record. The certificates are taken on record and

¶22

WP 4119/02

¶23

¶24

marked as Exhibits X and X-1 for identification. The relevant portion of the affidavit dated 25.4.2011 reads thus:

¶25

“I say and submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the same Scrutiny Committee has validated the tribe claims of my close blood relatives including my real sister, their names and relationship with me are as under:

¶26

1] Madhav Hanmanta Totwad Second cousin 2] Balaji Shankar Totwad Second cousin 3] Maruti Shankar Totwad Second cousin 4] Shivaji Ramrao Totwad Second cousin 5] Shital d/o Ramrao Totwad Second cousin 6] Shilpa d/o Ramrao Totwad Second cousin 7] Venkatesh Jairam Totwad First cousin 8] Rajesh Gangadhar Totwad First cousin 9] Chhaya d/o Sheshrao Totwad Real sister

¶27

The copies of validity certificate of above persons are annexed herewith and marked at Exhibit-AJ1.

¶28

2] I respectfully submit that, considering the above referred facts, my claim deserves to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee in the light of the various decisions given in favour of close blood relatives from the paternal side of the petitioner. I further say and submit that, the admission to Post Graduate Medical Course deserves to be considered from the same category as I have extremely good case on merit.”

¶29

4] Shri V.H. Dighe, learned AGP, does not dispute the statements made on affidavit by the petitioner and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by Shri S.R. Barlinge, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned AGP, on

¶30

WP 4119/02

¶31

¶32

instructions, submits that in view of the subsequent developments namely issuance of caste validity certificates in favour of the petitioner’s real sister, real brother and father, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh hearing within time frame.

¶33

5] Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the certificates of caste validity issued in favour of the close relatives of the petitioner, the order, impugned in th present writ petition, passed by respondent no.2 – scrutiny committee dated 25.9.2002 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 2 – scrutiny committee for considering the petitioner’s tribe claim afresh. The committee shall consider and decide the petitioner’s tribe claim as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt fo this order. The petitioner is directed to produce copy of this order before the scrutiny committee within a period of four weeks from today, failing which his tribe claim shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without reference to the Court. It is needless to mention that the committee shall decide the petitioner’s tribe claim on merits in accordance with law. The interim relief, that was granted by this Court on 8.10.2002, shall remain operative till disposal of the petitioner’s tribe claim by the scrutiny committee.

¶34

Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of this order. No costs. Consequently, all pending civil applications are also disposed of.

¶35

¶36

Office to issue authenticated copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties on demand.

¶37

(S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)

¶38

ndk/c381120

Karnaveer Sheshrao Totwad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnaveer Sheshrao Totwad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Keshavrao Sawant Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Chandrakant Kishanrao Rudrawar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivdas Sambhaji Dhavale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gulchhanda Ramrao Bhosle Alias Chandrakala Balaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Khumansing Hilal Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandurang Mahadeo Harshe Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation Aurangabad through Administrator