Disposed

Deepak Ganpatrao Totawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2012WP/5114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the pendency of his Scheduled Tribe caste claim verification. The Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim on merits within six months and prevented the Health Department from passing adverse orders due to non-production of the certificate during this period.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim within six months; prohibition on passing adverse order by Respondent No.3 for six months.

Deepak Ganpatrao Totawar Vs the State of Mah… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp5114.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.5114 OF 2012

¶6

Deepak s/o Ganpatrao Totawar,
R/o-Onkareshwar Nagar,
Taroda (Bk.), Tq. & Dist-Nanded.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,

¶10

Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶11

2) The Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,

¶12

 Through its Member Secretary,

¶13

3) The Deputy Director of Health Services, Kolhapur Circle,

¶14

 Kolhapur, Tq. & Dist-Kolhapur.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS.

¶16

...

¶17

 Shri.Sandip C. Swami Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D.
 Gunale Advocate for Petitioner.

¶18

 Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos.1 and 3.

¶19

 Shri.A.R. Salve Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 ...

¶20

wp5114.12

¶21

¶22

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶23

 DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2012.

¶24

PER COURT :

¶25

1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.

¶26

2.The Petitioner claims to be belonging to
“Manner Warlu”, Scheduled Tribe. The proposal for

¶27

verification of Petitioner's caste claim is
pending with the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee. The learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee submits that
within a period of six months, the caste claim
proposal of the Petitioner would be finally
decided by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶28

3.The learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is in

¶30

service. The Petitioner prays for interim

¶31

wp5114.12

¶32

¶33

protection till his caste claim proposal is

¶34

decided by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶35

4.We direct the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee to decide the caste claim proposal of
the Petitioner, on its own merits, within a period
of SIX MONTHS from today. We do not express any
opinion on the merits of the caste claim of the
Petitioner.

¶36

5.The Petitioner undertakes to co-operate

¶37

with the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, in

¶38

final disposal of the caste claim proposal. The
Petitioner shall attend the hearing before the
Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee on 3rd
September, 2012, at 11.00 a.m.

¶39

6.For a period of SIX MONTHS, Respondent
No.3 is directed not to pass any adverse order
against the Petitioner on account of non
production of caste validity certificate.

¶40

wp5114.12

¶41

¶42

7.With the above observations and

¶43

directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶44

[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶45

asb/AUG12

Deepak Ganpatrao Totawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Ganpatrao Totawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piraji Rangnath Vidhate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Krishna Oil Co. Jafrabad Vs Collector, Jalna

Chandrabhan Ramdas Raising and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mohammed Ismail Yakoob Patel Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pandurang Ashok Ghuge and Ors. Vs the Associate Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Sci. and Ors.

Nikhil Chandrashekhar Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.