Partly allowed

Rajendra Jagannath Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2012WP/888/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged the caste validity certificate issued to an elected councillor. The High Court held the order lacked sufficient reasoning and quashed it, remanding the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Certificate was quashed and set aside. Matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim within six months. Petitioner given six-month stay on election petition.

Rajendra Jagannath Pawar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp888.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.888 OF 2012

¶6

Rajendra s/o Jagannath Pawar,
Age-42 years, Occu:Service,
R/o-Sanjaynagar Housing Society,
Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai,

¶10

2) The Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶11

3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur, Tq-Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar,

¶12

4) The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik Through its Member Secretary,

¶13

5) Shri. Ravindra Girdharilal Gulati, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Ward No.1, Dashmeshnagar, Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS.

¶15

wp888.12

¶16

¶17

...

¶18

 Shri.P.S. Dighe Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri.K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 4.
 Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.5.

¶19

...

¶20

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
 DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶21

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

¶22

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

¶23

heard finally, by consent.

¶24

2.The Petitioner challenges validity

¶25

certificate granted in favour of Respondent
No.5 - Ravindra Girdharilal Gulati.

¶26

3.The learned A.G.P. has produced original
record before us. We have perused the impugned
order and the reasoning adopted by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee.

¶27

¶28

wp888.12

¶29

4.We find that the impugned order is not
backed by sufficient reasoning. The said order

¶30

cannot be termed to be a reasoned order. It is
settled position in law that Caste Scrutiny
Committee is bound to provide required reasoning,
while deciding caste claim of the claimant.

¶31

5.In the facts of the case, the matter

¶32

requires to be remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny

¶33

Committee, on the sole ground that the Caste
Scrutiny Committee failed to pass reasoned order.
The validity certificate issued in favour of
Respondent No.5, on that ground, is quashed and
set aside. The matter is remanded back to the
Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶34

6.Respondent No.5 is elected councillor of
Municipal Council, Shrirampur. Learned counsel
Shri. Hon apprehends that Respondent No.5 would
suffer adverse consequences, as election petition,
which is filed by the Petitioner, is pending

¶35

wp888.12

¶36

¶37

consideration before the District Judge, District
Court, Shrirampur.

¶38

7.Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on
instructions, submits that in case the Caste
Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste
claim of Respondent No.5 within a stipulated time
frame, the Petitioner would not press for hearing
of the election petition, till then.

¶39

8.We direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to

¶40

decide caste verification claim of Respondent

¶41

No.5, within SIX MONTHS from today. The Respondent
No.5 undertakes to co-operate with the Caste
Scrutiny Committee in final disposal of his caste
claim. The Respondent No.5 shall appear before the
Caste Scrutiny Committee on 8th October, 2012.

¶42

9.We record the statement of the learned

¶43

counsel for the Petitioner that for a period of
SIX MONTHS, the Petitioner shall not press for

¶44

wp888.12

¶45

¶46

hearing of the election petition. All issues are
kept open.

¶47

10.Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶48

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

¶49

asb/SEPT12

Rajendra Jagannath Pawar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Jagannath Pawar 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

Bharat J Patel Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Baburao Shantappa Birajdar and Anr. Vs Sadanand Koche, Collector and Anr.

Virendra Ambadasrao Dudhgaonkar Vs the Parbhani City Municipal Corp. and Ors.

Prashant Vijay Male Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Banu Akil Jikare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pramod Trimbakrao Honrao Vs the State of Mah and Ors.