Allowed

Chandrakant Sopan Mudewar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2011WP/5204/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed orders rejecting the petitioner's application for a Scheduled Tribe caste certificate. The Court held that prima facie material and the Circle Officer's recommendation were sufficient to grant the certificate.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders rejecting the caste certificate application were quashed, and the petition was disposed of.

Chandrakant Sopan Mudewar Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 5204.2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2011

¶4

Chandrakant S/o Sopan Mudewar PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
 M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
 DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2011

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

¶13

Heard by consent.

¶14

2.By way of the present Petition, the

¶15

petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.2009

¶16

passed by respondent no.3-the Sub Divisional Officer,

¶17

Degloor, thereby rejecting the application filed by

¶18

the present petitioner for grant of caste certificate
that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled tribe and

¶19

the judgment and order passed by the learned
respondent no.2-Committee, thereby rejecting the
appeal filed by the present petitioner.

¶20

(2) WP 5204.2011

¶21

3.Perusal of the order passed by the

¶22

respondent no.3 would reveal that the only ground on
which the application is rejected is that though
there are various members in the petitioner's family,
none has obtained the caste certificate. The appeal
has been rejected on the ground that though the
Committee has deeply considered the matter, the
reasoning given by the Sub Divisional Officer is
satisfactory and, therefore, no interference is
warranted.

¶23

4.This Court in number of cases has held that
the consideration at the stage of grant of caste
certificate is different than the consideration for

¶24

the grant of validity of the candidate. What is
required to be considered at the stage of grant of
caste certificate is only as to whether there is
prima facie material to support the claim of the
candidate belonging to a particular tribe or caste.

¶25

5.Perusal of the record would reveal that the
petitioner had submitted the necessary documents in
support of his claim. Not only that but the relevant

¶26

(3) WP 5204.2011

¶27

Revenue Officer i.e. the Circle Officer has also
recommended the claim of the petitioner.

¶28

6.In that view of the matter, we find the
impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Rule is
therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause

¶29

(B).

¶30

arp/

Chandrakant Sopan Mudewar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Sopan Mudewar 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

Ram Sangappa Medewar Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Pinky @ Megha Vijay Yallamwad Vs the Superintending Engineer Mah State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Nanded

Ramesh Keshavrao Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Vinayak Ajabe and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Balasaheb Marutik Holambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhartiya Banjara Shikshan Prasark Mandal Khel Tanda Dist Osmanabad Vs the State of Mahrshtra and Ors.