Partly allowed

Pawankumar S/O Bhaurilal Malviya v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 3 Others

Bombay HC19 Jan 2012WP/3880/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench quashed an impugned order declining the petitioner's B.C. caste claim. The court directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider new documents of residence and decide the matter afresh within four months, quashing the previous rejection due to the petitioner's inability to prosecute the claim personally due to minority issues.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 04/02/2011 quashed. Petitioner directed to appear before the Committee by 07/02/2012. Committee to decide afresh within four months.

Pawankumar S/O Bhaurilal Malviya Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP3880.2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3880 OF 2011

¶5

Pawankumar B. Malviya

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Mumbai and others

¶8

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

¶9

Mr. R. D. Wakode, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. T. R. Kankale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4

¶10

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ.

¶11

DATED : JANUARY 19, 2012.

¶12

Heard finally by consent of parties by issuing

¶13

Rule , making it returnable forthwith.

¶14

Contention of Advocate Wakode is, real brother of petitioner has been given caste validity by respondent No. 2 – Committee. However, validity has been declined to the present petitioner on the ground that he is not domiciled in State of Maharashtra prior to 1967.

¶15

WP3880.2011

¶16

¶17

Shri. Wakode has invited our attention to the document dated 15/3/2011 at Annexure “G” and document dated 11/3/2011 at Annexure “H” to urge that these documents show the stay of forefathers of the petitioner in the State of Maharashtra in the year 1929.

¶18

He points out that father of the petitioner expired when petitioner was minor and his caste claim is submitted for verification during his minority. It is contended that claim is prosecuted by petitioner's mother who works as Labour, therefore, relevance of these documents and its significance could not be understood by her and hence these documents could not be produced.

¶19

Learned AGP appearing for respondent No. 2 – Committee contends that the documents were not produced in spite of granting an opportunity, therefore, Committee cannot be blamed.

¶20

Shri. Kasat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 – University, states that the petitioner is taking education in respondent No. 3 –College.

¶21

The fact that the elder brother of the petitioner has been given validity, is not in dispute. The

¶22

WP3880.2011

¶23

¶24

documents produced before us prima facie show that persons named therein were residing in Amravati District in 1929. The facts & background from which petitioner hails reveals that he could not receive proper assistance while prosecuting the caste claim.

¶25

In this situation and in the interest of justice, we direct respondent No. 2 – Committee to consider the documents filed at Annexure “G” and Annexure “H” along with the petition and for that purpose give proper opportunity to the petitioner. Only for said purpose, impugned order dated 04/02/2011 passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. Petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2 – Committee on 07/02/2012 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Committee to attempt to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001) as early as possible in any case within the four

¶26

WP3880.2011

¶27

¶28

months from the date of petitioner's appearance. Petition is, thus, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

¶29

JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

Punde

Pawankumar S/O Bhaurilal Malviya v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawankumar S/O Bhaurilal Malviya v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 3 Others

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

Madanlal Asaramji Chomuwal..... Vs Gramoddhar Shikshan Sanstha,Tonglabad and 2 Others.

The Amravati Vibhagiya Vima Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Thr. Its Secty. Vs Manish S/O Punjabrao Kalmegh and Ors.

Sau. Ujwala W/O Vinod Zate and Anr. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 2 Ors.

Smt. Mangala Wd/O Keshao Bhamburkar, through P.O.A Anil Chintaman Khare and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhandara Gosikhurd Project and 2 Ot

Ramesh S/O Govindrao Timase Vs Smt. Saraswati D/O Krishnaji Warabhe

Central Hindu Military Edu. Soc. Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shailesh Sudhir Joglekar and Anr. Vs W.C.L. Thr. Chairman and M.D. and Oths