Remanded

Ku. Nupur D/O Vinay Baraskar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Bombay HC17 Feb 2012WP/5184/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee regarding the petitioner's caste claim, remanding the matter for a de novo decision.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.8.2011 set aside and matter remanded to Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim de novo within three months.

Ku. Nupur D/O Vinay Baraskar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/2

¶2

17.02.wp.5184.11

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PEITITION NO. 5184 / 2011 (Ku.Nupur d/o Vinay Baraskar vs. State of Maharashtra and others )

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. Narayan Phadnis, Adv.for petitioner Mr Thakre, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2 Mr M M Papinwar, Adv.for Res.No.4

¶7

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 17^th February, 2012.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Mr. Thakre, learned AGP states that the original order passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee/respondent no.2 was by mistake and he says that he has no objection if the matter is sent back to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner de novo .

¶10

In view of the above statement, the order dated 11.8.2011 (Annexure “A” to the petition) passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee/respondent no.2 to decide the same de novo in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee initially on 1^st March 20012 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 a.m. and

¶11

2/2

¶12

17.02.wp.5184.11

¶13

thereafter seek appropriate date. The caste claim of the petitioner be decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of three months from today.

¶14

Subject to what is stated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

JUDGE

¶17

sahare

Ku. Nupur D/O Vinay Baraskar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Nupur D/O Vinay Baraskar v. State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Mantralaya Mumbai

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

Prashant S/O Bhimrao Kapse and Ors. Vs the Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust and Ors.

Eknath S/O Gulabrao Mahure Vs Amar Education Society, Takalghat, Nagpur and Ors.

Mayur S/O Ramkrishnarao Hedau Vs the State of Mah.Thr.Secy.Ministry of Tribal and 2

Smt. Preety W/O Shri Vijay Chattani Earlier Known as P Poptani Vs Nagpur University Thr. Its Registrar and Anr.

Shri Shivaji Education Society, through Its Secretary and Another Vs the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board,Thr. Divisional Secretary and

Dr. Sayyad Numan S/O Sayyad Khudaddad Hussaini Vs the Member, Maharashtra Administrative Court, Nagpur and 3 Others