Allowed

Pandurang Ramrao Tangadpalle. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2012WP/2604/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a six-year delayed order invalidating his Scheduled Tribe claim. The High Court quashed the impugned order due to excessive delay and directed the committee to decide the claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30th June, 1994 is quashed. The committee is directed to decide the claim within six months.

Pandurang Ramrao Tangadpalle. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 1994

¶3

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶4

¶5

Pandurang s/o. Ramrao Tangadpalle, Aged major, Occ. Service (PSI), R/o. Pangra, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶6

PETITIONER.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1] The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32.

¶9

2] The Director General of Police, Old Council Hall, Colaba, M.S. Bombay 400 005.

¶10

3] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, M.S. Nasik. (Through its Deputy Director (R), Adhiwasi Bhawan, Old Agra Road, Nasik.

¶11

4] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶12

. RESPONDENTS.

¶13

Mr. U.R. Awate, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. D.B. Bhange, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 1994

¶16

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶17

2 ---

¶18

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 13TH FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J] :-

¶20

1] Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out during the course of the day.

¶21

2] By way of present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 30th June, 1994, passed by the respondent scrutiny committee, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Mahadeo Koli scheduled tribe.

¶22

3] The petition deserves to be allowed on a short ground. The committee had heard the matter on 13th December, 1989, whereas, the impugned order has been passed on 30th June, 1994. It can thus clearly be seen that there is a delay of 6 years in passing the impugned order from the date of hearing. It is difficult to believe that members of the committee would have remembered as to what was argued before them prior to 6 years. By now it is a settled principle of law that judicial and quasi judicial authorities are expected to pass orders immediately after

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 1994

¶25

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶26

¶27

they are closed for orders.

¶28

4] There is another angle to the petition. The impugned order is passed prior to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Kum. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner" reported in AIR 1994 SC 95 and prior to the enactment of the Maharashtra SC,ST,DNT(VJ), NT, OBC Classes & SBC (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Casts Certificate Act, 2000.

¶29

5] On account of the interim orders passed by this court, the petitioner is working with the respondents on the basis of his claim of belonging to scheduled tribe. In that view of the matter, we find that the following order needs to be passed in the interest of justice :-

¶30

[i] The impugned order dated 30th June, 1994 is quashed and set aside.

¶31

[ii] The petitioner shall submit a proposal to the respondent No.4 committee alongwith all documentary evidence.

¶32

[iii] On receipt of the proposal, the respondent No.4 committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months from today.

¶33

[iv] The interim order which was granted in favour of the petitioner shall continue to operate till the decision of the

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO. 2604 OF 1994

¶36

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶37

¶38

committee on remand and in case the decision is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, for a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication thereof to the petitioner.

¶39

Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs.

¶40

[SUNIL .P. DESHMUKH,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶41

grt/-

Pandurang Ramrao Tangadpalle. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Ramrao Tangadpalle. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others.

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

Shivraj Gangaram Jamdade Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Tushar Anandrao Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti Nanded Vs Karbhari Amruta Pawar and Ors.

Shahadeo Lmahadeo Mohod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Damodhar Kasar. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Anita Anil Vaidya. Vs Union of India and Others.