Allowed

Kumari Rohini D/O. Sambhaji Ghantewad and Anr. through Natural Guardian Father S.G.Ghantewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2012WP/4447/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by minors seeking Scheduled Tribe certificates as Mahadeo Kolis, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, quashed impugned rejection orders and directed the Sub Divisional Officer to issue the certificates within thirty days subject to future verification by the Scrutiny Committee.

What did the court decide?

Quashed impugned orders from SDO and Caste Scrutiny Committee; directed SDO to issue caste certificates within 30 days subject to verification; rule made absolute.

Kumari Rohini D/O. Sambhaji Ghantewad and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp4447.09

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4447 OF 2009

¶6

1) Kumari Rohini d/o Sambhaji Ghantewad, Age-Minor, Occu:Student,

¶7

2) Kumari Mohini d/o Sambhaji Ghantewad, Age-Minor, Occu: Student,

¶8

Both the Petitioners being minor,
Through the natural guardian father-
Sambhaji s/o Ganpat Ghantewad,
Age-41 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Sawargaon(P), Tq-Mukhed,
Dist-Nanded.

¶9

...PETITIONERS.

¶10

 VERSUS

¶11

1) The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, Through its Secretary,

¶12

2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary,

¶13

3) The Sub Divisional Officer/ Deputy Collector (EGS), Office of the Collectorate, Nanded, Dist-Nanded.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS.

¶15

wp4447.09

¶16

¶17

...

¶18

 Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar Advocate for the
 Petitioners.
 Shri. R.P. Phatake, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 and 3.
 Shri. P.P. More Advocate for Respondent
 No.2.

¶19

...

¶20

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.

¶21

 DATE : 25TH JANUARY, 2012.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] :

¶23

1.Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard finally.

¶24

2.The Petitioners applied for grant of
caste certificate as belonging to 'Mahadeo Koli',

¶25

Scheduled Tribe. The Applications filed by the
Petitioners were rejected by the Sub Divisional
Officer, Nanded, by an order dated 22nd August,
2006.

¶26

wp4447.09

¶27

¶28

3.The Petitioners preferred appeal against

¶29

the said orders before the appellate authority
constituted under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. By
communications dated 18th April, 2007 the
appellate authority intimated the Petitioners that
their appeals stand rejected as those were filed
after the prescribed period of limitation of 30
days. The Petitioners therefore preferred the
present Writ Petition against both the orders.

¶30

4.Shri. Golegaonkar, learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the Petitioners has placed reliance
on the certificate of caste validity, granted in

¶32

favour of father of the Petitioners, which is at
running page No.63 of the paper book, along with

¶33

wp4447.09

¶34

¶35

the other documents. The learned counsel submits
that suitable directions are required to be given,

¶36

in the facts of the case, for grant of caste
certificates to the Petitioners.

¶37

5.Shri. More, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Scrutiny Committee submits that in
accordance with the facts of the case, appropriate
orders be passed.

¶38

6.We have perused the relevant document,
copy of the certificate of caste validity granted
in favour of Sambhaji Ganpatrao Ghantewad, who
according to the Petitioners, is their father. The
Petitioners have placed reliance on other
documents too.

¶39

7.Considering the prima facie material

¶40

placed on record, for issuance of caste

¶41

certificates, we are of the view that necessary
directions are required to be given to the

¶42

wp4447.09

¶43

¶44

Authority concerned, for issuance of caste

¶45

certificates to the Petitioners. Hence we pass
following order:

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

(A) The impugned orders dated
22nd August, 2006 passed by the
RespondentNo.3-Sub
DivisionalOfficer/Deputy
Collector (EGS), Nanded, and
the impugned orders dated 18th
April, 2007 passed by the
RespondentNo.2-Caste

¶48

Scrutiny Committee, are quashed
and set aside.

¶49

(B) The Respondent No.3 - Sub

¶50

DivisionalOfficer/Deputy
Collector (EGS), Nanded, is
directedtoissuecaste

¶51

wp4447.09

¶52

¶53

Certificates in favour of both
the Petitioners showing therein
that the Petitioners belong to
'MahadeoKoli',Scheduled
Tribe, within THIRTY DAYS from
the date of receipt of the copy
of this Order.

¶54

(C) It is clarified that the
certificates issued by the
Respondent No.3, in favour of
the Petitioners, would be
subject to verification by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, for
the purposes of ascertaining
the caste claims of the
Petitioners.

¶55

(D) This Court has not
expressed any opinion on the
merits of the caste claims of

¶56

wp4447.09

¶57

¶58

the Petitioners.

¶59

(E) Rule is made absolute on

¶60

the terms indicated above.

¶61

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶62

asb/JAN12

Kumari Rohini D/O. Sambhaji Ghantewad and Anr. through Natural Guardian Father S.G.Ghantewad v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Rohini D/O. Sambhaji Ghantewad and Anr. through Natural Guardian Father S.G.Ghantewad v. the 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

Midc through Its Divnll Officer Divn Office Latur Vs Prabhu Deorao Bansode Died Th Lrs Devabai Prabhu Bansode and Ors.

Nitin Pauladsing Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Ganesh Somni and Ors. Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Shri Dilip Hunya Pawara and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kantilal Singa Paradke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samabai Vithoba Aghav Vs the District Collector Beed and Ors.