Partly allowed

Excon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2012WP/1982/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench set aside the appellate order directing a Deputy Collector to issue a Scheduled Tribe certificate to a respondent, holding that production of documentary evidence by the claimant should precede such issuance.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order directing the Deputy Collector to issue a tribal certificate was set aside to that extent.

Excon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

oswpl-2138-12

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2138 OF 2012

¶6

Excon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Jyoti Sinha i/by M/s. Negandhi Shah & Himaytollah for petitioners. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5. Ms. Uma Palsule – Desai for respondent no.6.

¶10

CORAM: S. A. BOBDE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶11

SEPTEMBER 06, 2012.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶14

consent of parties.

¶15

The only grievance of the petitioners is that the appellate order

¶16

dated 4.2.2012 directs the appellant to produce additional and sufficient necessary documentary evidence from the paternal side and yet contains a

¶17

direction to the authority i.e. Deputy Collector and Special Land

¶18

¶19

oswpl-2138-12

¶20

Acquisition Officer No.7 to issue a certificate that the appellant belongs to Varli, Scheduled Tribe. We see no reason why the appropriate authority ought to have been directed to issue the certificate that the respondent no.6 – Suresh Soma Lothade belongs to Varli, Scheduled Tribe after the appellate authority directed certain documents to be produced before the appropriate authority. Indeed, if the documents are deceptive or did not establish that the said person belongs to Varli, Scheduled Tribe, the authority ought to have been given the discretion to decide in accordance with the evidence produced.

¶21

We thus set aside the order to the extent that it directs the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer No.7, Mumbai Suburban District to issue a tribal certificate.

¶22

Mr. Dhakephalkar also submitted that the appellate order is bad in law because it has applied the affinity test without a vigilance report in that regard. We are of the view that this objection is not very material in view of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of

¶23

¶24

oswpl-2138-12

¶25

Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, which reads as

¶26

under:-

¶27

“ 4. Caste certificate to be issued by competent Authority . -

¶28

(1) The Competent Authority may, on an application made to it

¶29

under Section 3, after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim and following the procedure as prescribed, issue a Caste Certificate within such time limit and in such form as may be prescribed or reject the application for reason to be recorded in writing.

¶30

(2) A Caste Certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the Competent Authority shall be invalid. The Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.”

¶31

Rule is disposed off in above terms.

¶32

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) (S. A. BOBDE,J.)

Excon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Excon Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. 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

Satara Zillha Sahakari Patsanstha Federation Ltd, Satara Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Smt. Geeta Kantilal Parmar (Geeta Chunilal Waghela) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Bhaskar Waman Ramteke Vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Sushant Rajaram Khillari Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Balu Dhavlu Thakar (Decd) through Heir Smt. Barasabai Baban Shinde Vs the Collector of Pune and Ors.