Allowed

Shyam Balu Bomod v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2012WP/7225/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad issued a written order in a writ petition concerning the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe certificate application. The court passed a general order quashing the impugned order and directing the issuance of the certificate to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of 28th June, 2012 was quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to issue the Tribe Certificate within four weeks, subject to verification.

Shyam Balu Bomod Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7225 OF 2012

¶3

Shyam s/o. Balu Bomod, Age 18 years, Occ. Education, R/o. Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded.

¶4

.. PETITIONER.

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1] The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralalya, Mumbai. 2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Deputy Director, Research.

¶7

3] The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. .. RESPONDENTS.

¶8

¶9

Mr. G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. S.S. Tope, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶10

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE :- 1st OCTOBER, 2012.

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 7225 OF 2012

¶13

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

¶14

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶15

2] The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of tribe certificate. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Appellate Authority (respondent No.2). The Appellate Authority, by order dated 28th June, 2012, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶16

3] Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.2820 of 2009 ( Coram : N.V. Dabholkar and A.V. Potdar, JJ), dated 30^th April, 2009.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 7410 of 2008 (Coram : D.K. Deshmukh and K.K. Tated, JJ).

¶18

4] We have perused the judgments relied upon by the parties. The petitioner had submitted alongwith his application, the school leaving certificate, school admission extract, service record of his close relatives etc. Prima facie, we find that the petitioner is entitled to get the tribe certificate. Hence, we pass following order.

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 7225 OF 2012

¶21

[i] The impugned order dated 28^th June, 2012 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. We direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue Tribe Certificate to the petitioner, as belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶22

[ii] The Tribe Certificate so issued in favour of the petitioner would be subject to the verification by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nanded.

¶23

[iii] It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee shall verify the tribe claim of the petitioner, on its own merits.

¶24

[iv] Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶25

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

¶26

grt/-

¶27

Shyam Balu Bomod v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Balu Bomod 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Murlidhar Gore Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Hamal Mapari Kamgar Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Gangapur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahatma Gandhi Mission Trust and Anr. Vs the Council of Architecture and Ors.

Shailendra Vasant Panpatil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Muzfar Abbas Mohd Dildar Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ganpat Dnyanoba Gungane Vs the State of Mah and Anr.