Allowed

Maharashtra Koli Samaj Sangh Thr Dist. President v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2013PIL/21/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning scholarship facilities for Scheduled Tribe students, the Court quashed a communication demanding five documents contrary to a government resolution specifying only three documents and directed authorities to process pending applications. Headnote: The impugned communication dated 15th September 2012 was quashed and set aside as it was found to be unreasonable and against the

What did the court decide?

Quashed communication dated 15.09.2012; directed Respondents to follow Govt. Resolutions dated 31.05.2010 and 26.08.2010 and Commissioner's clarification dated 01.08.2013; pending applications to be p

Maharashtra Koli Samaj Sangh Thr Dist. President Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

pil21.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.21 OF 2012

¶6

Maharashtra Koli Samaj Sangh
Through it's District President
Vijaykumar Makkan Shinde,
Age-30 years, Occu:Agril.,
R/o-Plot No.4-A, Vikram Nagar,
Chinoda Road, Taloda,
Tq-Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶10

2) Commissioner of Tribal Development Through, Commissioner of Tribal Development, Maharashtra State, Nashik, Tribal Development Bhuvan, 1st floor, Gadkari Chowk, Bombay-Agra Road, Nashik-422 002,

¶11

3) Prakalp Adhikari, Ekatmik Aadiwasi Vikas Prakalp, Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

pil21.12

¶14

¶15

...

¶16

 Shri. Abhijeet P. Avhad Advocate for
 Petitioner.

¶17

 Shri.S.G. Nandedkar, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3.

¶18

...

¶19

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶20

 DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2013

¶21

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

¶22

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally, by consent.

¶23

communication dated 15th September 2012 (Exhibit
X-1, Page No.84 of the Petition), made by the
Project Officer, Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas Prakalp,

¶24

Taloda, Dist-Nandurbar, addressed to the Head
Masters of various schools. The precise grievance
of the Petitioner is that inspite of clarificatory

¶25

Government Resolution issued on 26th August, 2010,

¶26

pil21.12

¶27

¶28

the concerned Authorities are insisting for

¶29

requirement of other documents which are not

¶30

mentioned under the said Government Resolution.

¶31

3.By an order dated 25th July, 2013, we
haveraisedfollowingtwoissuesfor

¶32

consideration:-

¶33

Resolution dated 26th August 2010,

¶34

whether students belonging to
ScheduledTribearegetting

¶35

scholarship or not.

¶36

B) Under a communication dated 15th

¶37

September 2012, Exhibit X-1, Page 84

¶38

to the Petition, signed by the
Project Officer, Taloda, Dist-

¶39

Nandurbar, students residing in

¶40

Taloda and Shahada Talukas are to
submit five documents to get benefit

¶41

pil21.12

¶42

¶43

of this scholarship scheme. Whether

¶44

such a communication is contrary to

¶45

Government Resolution dated 26th
August, 2010."

¶46

4.The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed
affidavit in reply in the month of August, 2012.
The Petitioner filed rejoinder to the affidavit in
reply. We have perused the same.

¶47

5.Today, the learned A.G.P. has placed on

¶48

record a copy of communication made by the
Commissioner, Tribal Development, Maharashtra
State, Nashik, dated 1st August, 2013, wherein it
has been clarified that students belonging to
Scheduled Tribe (Tokre Koli) are required to
furnish three documents for getting the benefit of
scholarship under the scheme as proposed under the
Government Resolutions, which are as follows:-

¶49

"[1] Application,

¶50

pil21.12

¶51

¶52

[2] Extract of school register,

¶53

[3] The certificate of income of
parents."

¶54

6.The stand adopted by the Respondents as
reflected in the communication placed on record

¶55

today, referred above, makes it clear that the
impugned communication dated 15th September, 2012
circulated by the Project Officer, Ekatmik Adivasi
Prakalp, Taloda, Dist-Ahmednagar, was unreasonable

¶56

and against the policy of the State.

¶57

7.The impugned communication dated 15th

¶58

September 2012, issued by the Project Officer,
Ekatmik Adivasi Vikas Prakalp, Taloda, Dist-
Nandurbar, addressed to the Head Masters of
various schools, is quashed and set aside. The
RespondentsshallfollowtheGovernment

¶59

Resolutions dated 31st May, 2010 and 26th August,

¶60

2010 and implement the Scheme in accordance with

¶61

pil21.12

¶62

¶63

the clarification expressed by the Commissioner,
Tribal Development, Maharashtra State, Nashik, in
the communication dated 1st August, 2013. In case
the Applications submitted by the deserving
candidates, under the Scheme, are pending with the
Authorities, we direct the Respondent Authorities
to process the said applications strictly in
accordance with the policy of the State.

¶64

8.The Rule is made absolute on the terms
indicated above.

¶65

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶66

asb/AUG13

Maharashtra Koli Samaj Sangh Thr Dist. President v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Koli Samaj Sangh Thr Dist. President 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

Shivaji Sonoba Auti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwanath Ganpatrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohd. Abdul Shafique S/O Mohd Ziya and 2 Oth. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Ministry of Revenue Department, through Its Secretary and 2

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mahadeo Ramkishan Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nivruti Barku Bahikar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Shivram Sawant and Anr. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Hanumant Vishwas Tupe Vs Serum Bio-Pharma Park, Serum Institute of India Ltd. and Ors.

Shivaji Sonoba Auti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishwanath Ganpatrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ilahi Farid Bagavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Alishan Bee Shaikh Rashid Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satish Suresh Maslekar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sunil Anandrao Sawant, C.No. 4361, Open District Prison, Paithan Vs the State of Maharashtra