Allowed

Sushil Gangadhar Talikhedkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2012WP/941/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad allowed a writ petition challenging an order denying the State authority jurisdiction to correct caste and date of birth entries. The court quashed the order and allowed the petition with the permission to make a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order denying jurisdiction and allowed the petition with liberty to file a fresh application.

Sushil Gangadhar Talikhedkar and Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶3

Court's or Judge's orders

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 941 OF 2012

¶5

SUSHIL GANGADHAR TALIKHEDKAR AND ORS VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

¶7

... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vibhute Sunil M. AGP for Respondents: Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar.

¶8

CORAM : B R GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: February 02, 2012

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Since respondent no.1 being State authority, notice of rule is waived by learned AGP. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

Facts in the present case are similar with the facts in Writ Petition No.704/2010 which was decided by this court on 8.2.2010 and writ petition no.3309/2010 decided on 28.10.2010.

¶12

In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order dated 2.9.2011 holding that respondent no.2 has no jurisdiction to correct the entries regarding date of birth and caste is not sustainable and as such, same is quashed and set aside.

¶13

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶15

Court's or Judge's orders

¶16

We therefore, allow the petition with liberty to the petitioners to make fresh application through respondent no.3 alongwith all the documents in support of the petitioners claim. On receipt of the said proposal, the respondent no.3 shall forward the same to respondent no.2, within a period of two weeks of receipt thereof. On receipt of the application by respondent no.2, same shall take appropriate decision within the period of four weeks of receipt thereof.

¶17

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶18

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( B R GAVAI, J. )

¶19

aaa/-

Sushil Gangadhar Talikhedkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Gangadhar Talikhedkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Sunil Digambar Korde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Rajmohammad Vs Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad Thr Member Secretary

Subhadra Baburao Sherkhane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivaji Manikrao Attamwad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Murlidhar Sursing Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Akbar Shaikh Gulam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.