Remanded

Sujaysingh Rajendrasingh Rajput v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2011WP/9714/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench allowed the petitioner's challenge to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting his claim as a Denotified Tribe. Following the principle that audit rights require a hearing before deviation from a Vigilance Cell's favorable report, the court set aside the order and remitted the matter for de novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for de novo consideration and decision.

Sujaysingh Rajendrasingh Rajput Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP9714/11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.9714 OF 2011

¶3

Sujaysingh R. Rajput ...Petitioner

¶4

v/s

¶5

State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶6

Mr R.K. Mendadkar with Mr K.T. Pawar for Petitioner.
Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA JJ.

¶8

DATE : 14TH DECEMBER 2011.

¶9

2 WP9714/11

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1]Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the parties.

¶12

2]By this petition, the petitioners
challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 �
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.

¶13

2, Kolhapur holding that the claim of the petitioner

¶14

that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta, Denotified Tribe
is not valid. It is clear from the record that the
Vigilance Cell had submitted the report and that
report was in favour of the petitioner. Therefore,

¶15

in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court

¶16

in its judgment in the case of Kum Madhuri Patil v/s
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, in case the
Scrutiny Committee wanted to disagree with the
report of the Vigilance Cell, it should have granted

¶17

an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

¶18

then taken its decision. As this procedure is not
followed, the petitioner should succeed. In our

¶19

3 WP9714/11

¶20

opinion, therefore, following order would meet the
ends of justice.

¶21

3]The impugned order is set aside, the matter

¶22

is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for de
novo consideration and decision in accordance with
law and in the light of the observations made
hereinabove. Rule is made absolute with no order as
to costs.

¶23

Parties to act on the copy of this order

¶24

duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private
Secretary of this Court.

¶25

Certified copy expedited.

Sujaysingh Rajendrasingh Rajput v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujaysingh Rajendrasingh Rajput v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept 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

Jyoti Deepak Mhettar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya Samajik Sahayata Pratishthan Vs the Mumbai University and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Shri. Vijay Sharad Kulkarni

Surekha Shirish Dogmane Vs Chinchani Tarapur Education Society'S English Medium School Secondary Div

Union of India and Ors. Vs Smt. Sunita Singh and Ors.

Sitaram Pandurang Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept of Gram Vikas and Ors.