Allowed

Shivraj Gangaram Jamdade v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2012WP/79/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the application of a petitioner seeking a caste certificate as Other Backward Class. The court found that the Sub Divisional Officer failed to consider documents reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee and issued an order contrary to judicial directions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 6.1.2012 set aside; rule made absolute for issuance of caste certificate.

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Coram: B.R.Gavai & Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ orders or directions Date : 10th February 2012 and the Registrar's orders.

2.Petitioner has approached this court, being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, thereby partly allowing the appeal of the petitioner herein, by setting aside the order passed by Respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, dated 5.8.2011 and remanding the matter to Respondent No.3.

3.Even after remand, Sub Divisional Officer passed an order on 6.1.2012, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner has, by way of amendment to the present petition, has challenged the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer.

4.The petitioner, who claims to be belonging to caste Wani, which is notified as Other Backward Classes, had applied for grant of caste certificate, but it was rejected on 5.3.2011 by Respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, on the ground that the entry regarding petitioner's caste, is recorded as `Lingder'.

05.Aggrievedthereby,thepetitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The Committee decided the same on 14.12.2011. The Committee found that the entire record pertaining to father, grand father, as well as other relatives of the petitioner, established that there was sufficient material on record to indicate that he belongs to caste Wani-Other Backward Class.

06.In spite of allowing the appeal of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee remanded the matter to Respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer, with a further direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the documents pertaining to petitioner's father, grant father, aunt and cousins.

07.We find that Respondent No.2-Committee has also erred in passing the impugned order dated 14.12.2011, inasmuch as although the Committee was fully satisfied regarding the the fact that the entire record pertaining to petitioner's father, grand father and other relatives established that the petitioner belongs to Wani-Other Backward Class, it has remanded the matter. In fact, on being satisfied about the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner, the Committee itself, in its appellate jurisdiction, could have directed issuance of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner.

08.Be that as it may. On remand of the matter, the Sub Divisional Officer was bound to consider the documents regarding petitioner's father, grand-father, aunt and cousins. However, without considering those documents, Respondent No. 3-Sub Divisional Officer, by order dated 6.1.2012, again confirmed his earlier order dated 5.3.2011 without whispering anything about the material placed on record by the petitioner and which the Scrutiny Committee had directed Respondent No.3 to take into consideration, while remanding the matter.

09.We find that the order of the Respondent No.3- Sub Divisional Officer dated 6.1.2012, not only suffers from non application of mind, but it is also in violation of the directions issued by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee.

10.On going through the discussion made by Respondent No.2-Committee in its order of remand dated 14.12.2011, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to at least issuance of caste certificate of belonging to caste Wani- Other Backward Class, although the same is subject to validation by Scrutiny Committee.

Shivraj Gangaram Jamdade v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivraj Gangaram Jamdade 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilashadabi Jafar Shaikh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nisarga Kanya Kaviyatri Bahinabai Chaudhari Vikas Manch Asoda Dist Jalgaon Thr President Vs Nivrutti Dagdu Sonwane and Ors.

Suman Sanjay Acharya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tushar Anandrao Jagtap and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rashtriya Shikshan Samiti Nanded Vs Karbhari Amruta Pawar and Ors.

Shaikh Arju Shaikh Ajij Vs the State of Mah and Anr.