Disposed

Muhammed Anas Abdullah Dandu v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012WP/9418/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted a final extension to the Divisional Tribe Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's tribe certificate application within two months. The petitioner undertook that MBBS admission would remain liable to cancellation if the claim fails.

What did the court decide?

Commanded Scrutiny Committee to decide application in two months; declared MBBS Part-II results subject to undertaking on cancellation of admission if tribe claim fails.

Muhammed Anas Abdullah Dandu Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 of 3 WP.9418.2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9418 OF 2012

¶4

Mohammed Anas Abdullah Dandu Petitioner versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶6

Respondents

¶7

Mr.Vaibhav Sugdare i/by Mr.Shrikishan S. Shinde for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for Respondent no.4.

¶8

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 16 October 2012

¶9

PC :

¶10

Rule. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

The Petitioner claims to belong to the Koya community and claims, therefore, to be entitled to a reservation for the Scheduled Tribes. By an order dated 31 August 2010 in Writ Petition No.6684 of 2010, a Division Bench of this Court had set aside an order of the Scrutiny Committee and had directed the Committee to pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within three months from 27 September 2010, since that was the date fixed for the appearance of the Petitioner before the Committee. In the meantime, the Court directed that the result of the Petitioner for MBBS, Part-I, should be declared subject to the result of the proceedings before the

¶12

2 of 3 WP.9418.2012

¶13

Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter by a further order dated 5 May 2011 in Writ Petition No.3660 of 2011, a Division Bench noted that the Committee had still not taken a decision on the grant of a validity certificate. The Division Bench directed the Committee to decide the pending claim within six months of the receipt of the order. In the meantime, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and the Dean of the college were directed to declare the result of the Petitioner of the first part of the MBBS course and the Court directed that the directions shall abide by the final result of the tribe claim.

¶14

The application of the Petitioner for validation of the tribe certificate is still pending adjudication before the Scrutiny Committee. We do not find any reason or justification for the Scrutiny Committee to keep the application pending for such a long period of time despite the earlier orders of the Division Bench dated 31 August 2010 and 5 May 2011. We would have been constrained to initiate steps against the Scrutiny Committee for non compliance of the orders of this court, but we grant one final extension to the Committee to pass orders. The AGP assures the Court that he shall communicate a copy of the present order forthwith to the Committee.

¶15

We accordingly direct the Divisional Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune to dispose of the application filed by the Petitioner no later than within a period of two months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order. The Petitioner undertakes to place an authenticated copy of this order on the record of the Scrutiny Committee within a period of one week of the order becoming

¶16

3 of 3 WP.9418.2012

¶17

available. The Scrutiny Committee shall communicate its compliance with these directions to the Registrar, Judicial-I, failing which the petition shall be placed for directions before the appropriate Bench on 7 January 2012. In the meantime, the result of the Petitioner for the MBBS Part-II shall be declared subject to the Petitioner filing an undertaking before the Third and Fourth Respondents to the effect that in the event that the tribe claim of the Petitioner is invalidated, he shall not claim any equities and that the admission granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

¶18

The petition is disposed of in these terms. No order as to costs.

¶19

(A.A.SAYED, J.)

¶20

MST

Muhammed Anas Abdullah Dandu v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anas Abdullah Dandu v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept 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

The Director, Vasantdada Patil Dental College and Hospital, Kavalapur Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Dental Education Section and Ors.

The Director, Vasantdada Patil Dental College and Hospital, Kavalapur Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Dental Education Section and Ors.

1. All India Council for Technical Education, through Its Western Regl. Off. and Anr. Vs 1. Vishwanastrao Sdhamrao Patil and Ors.

Muhammed Anas Abdullah Dandu Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

M/S. Dahyabhai Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 2 Ors.

Smt. Shobha Anil Sapkal Vs the Secretary, Rayat Shikshan Sanstha, Satara and Ors.