Remanded

Shiv Kumar Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2012WP/4597/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that caste validity certificates must be verified by the Vigilance Cell before grant. It quashed a certificate granted without verification and directed a specific Committee to reconsider the claim within two months.

What did the court decide?

The validity certificate granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 on 31.12.2011 was quashed; the matter was remanded to a specific Regular Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim within two months after v

Shiv Kumar Sahu Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary… — Election Law | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP4597_12.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 2012

¶4

Shiv Kumar Sahu … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents

¶5

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A. B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. K. H. Holambe Patil for Respondent No.4.

¶6

CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & R. G. KETKAR, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 10^TH SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the grant of caste validity certificate dated 31.12.2011 thereby validating the caste certificate dated 13.12.2011 issued in favour of respondent No.4.

¶11

The petitioner so also the respondent No.4 had contested the election from Ward No.224 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The said Ward was reserved for Other Backward Classes. Respondent No.4 had applied for grant of validity certificate on the basis of the special provisions made by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 30.07.2011. Undisputedly, the respondent No.4 has been granted validity certificate on 31.12.2011 without the claim of the respondent No.4 being verified by the Vigilance Cell.

¶12

By now, it is settled position of law that the Committee while deciding the claim of the candidate must get the claim of the candidate

¶13

1/4

¶14

WP4597_12.sxw

¶15

verified by the Vigilance Cell. Undisputedly, the said procedure is not followed in the present case inasmuch as the validity certificate is granted by the Special District-wise Committee constituted by the State Government vide the aforesaid Government Resolution.

¶16

In that view of the matter, we find that the interests of justice would be subserved by passing the following order:

¶17

(i) The validity certificate granted in favour of respondent No.4 on 31.12.2011 is quashed and set aside;

¶18

(ii) Respondent No.2 Committee is directed to reconsider the claim of respondent No.4 and decide the same within a period of three months from today after getting it verified from the Vigilance Cell as constituted under the relevant Government Resolution.

¶19

(iii) It is however made clear that the election of the respondent No.4 shall not be disturbed till the respondent No.2 Committee decides the claim of the petitioner, and in the event, an order adverse to the respondent No.4 is passed, for the period of three weeks from the communication of the said order to the respondent No.4.

¶20

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶22

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

Minal Parab

2/4

WP4597_12.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO. 4597 OF 2012 with

¶28

CIVIL APPLICAITON (st.) No. 34149 of 2012

¶29

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 4597 OF 2012.

¶31

Shiv Kumar Sahu. Versus State of Maharashtra and Others.

¶32

..Petitioner.

¶33

..Respondents.

¶34

Mr. C. K. Bhangoji i/b Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. B. V. Holambe-Patil for Respondent No. 4. None for the State.

¶35

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. Date : December 18, 2012 .

¶36

P. C. :

¶37

Civil Application (St.) No. 34149 of 2012 is not on board. At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner, civil application is taken on board.

¶38

This matter is moved by way of praecipe dated 18^th November 2012 for speaking to minutes of the order dated 10^th September 2012 passed in above writ petition. Mr. Bhangoji, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the order dated 23^rd October 2012 passed by

¶39

3/4

¶40

WP4597_12.sxw

¶41

this Court in Writ Petition No. 2533 of 2012.

¶42

Heard learned advocates. For the reasons stated in the order dated 23^rd October 2012 in Writ Petition No. 2533 of 2012, the order dated 10^th September 2012 is modified to the extent that in stead of “Respondent No.2 Committee” deciding the claim of the Petitioner, “the Regular Scrutiny Committee No.3, Mumbai Suburban District, Chember, Mumbai” shall decide the said claim. The said committee shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of two months from today.

¶43

Praecipe as well as Civil Application stand

¶44

disposed of.

¶45

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶46

4/4

Shiv Kumar Sahu v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Sahu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiyaz Ahd. Abdul Rashid Shaikh Vs the State of Maharshstra and Ors.

M/S Aaarya International and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ravindra Singh Singh Malhotra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.