Disposed

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam v. Union of India Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2013WP/1451/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A tribal student petitioned for equal scholarship benefits as OBC and SC students at a Flying Club. The Court observed the lack of policy details, directed the Union of India to decide on the received representation within a statutory period, and set specific deadlines for communication, keeping rival contentions open while disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 directed to act on representation; leave granted to file further representation; decision deadline fixed for Ministry of Tribal Affairs by October 21, 2013.

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam Vs Union of India… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1607wp1451.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1451 OF 2013

¶5

Digvijayant Wasudeo Tumdam Vs. Union of India thr Secretary & Ors.

¶6

........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders

¶7

Shri S. D. Chopde Adv for petitioner. Shri S. K. Mishra, ASGI for respondent 1. Ms. Tajwar Khan AGP for respondents 2 & 3.

¶8

CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.

¶9

DATED: 16^th JULY, 2013.

¶10

Petitioner before us is a tribal student seeking flying

¶11

lessons from respondent no.4-Flying Club at Nagpur. He claims to

¶12

have completed about 75% of the training and is experiencing difficulty in paying fees and continuing education further. He points out that respondent no. 1 Union of India has recognized about 10 Flying Clubs all over country and is extending them the benefit of scholarship. He submits that students belonging to Other

¶13

Backward Classes and Scheduled Caste taking education with respondent no.4 are receiving a scholarship while petitioner who belongs to Scheduled Tribe is denied it. Grievance was looked into

¶14

¶15

1607wp1451.13

¶16

by respondent no. 3 and on 9^th July 2010 and thereafter on 5^th January 2013, he forwarded the same to Joint Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Government of India as also to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development, Government of India, for favourable consideration. Till date no decision has been taken. Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thus there is clear cut discrimination and hostile treatment to the petitioner.

¶17

Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that petitioner has not given relevant details.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader relies upon the reply affidavit and submits that the respondent no.2 State Government and respondent no. 3 Divisional Commissioner are really not concerned with the matter. Decision is to be taken by respondent no.1 Union of India and the petitioner, therefore, must approach those authorities with proper case.

¶19

After hearing respective counsel we find that petitioner has not annexed any policy decision taken by Union of India to decide entitlement of Flying Clubs to be included in the panel of flying clubs and its eligibility to grant of scholarship. The petitioner has urged that students belonging to Other Backward Classes and

¶20

1607wp1451.13

¶21

¶22

Scheduled Caste taking lessons with respondent no. 4 are getting benefit of scholarship released by Union of India through its Social Welfare Ministry. As petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and is concerned with Ministry of Tribal Affairs, he is not getting the grants.

¶23

In this situation, we direct respondent no.1 to take appropriate decision on representation already sent to it by respondent no. 3 on 5^th January 2013 and 9^th July 2010. We also grant petitioner leave to submit the additional representation within a period of three weeks from today. If such representation is received by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, competent authority shall take decision upon it within further period of 8 weeks. Decision shall be communicated to petitioner by respondent no.1 on his postal address by 21^st October 2013. If the petitioner does not get any such communication, it will be open to him to approach appropriate forum/authority in the matter again. With these directions to respondent no.1 and keeping all rival contentions open we dispose of the petition. No costs.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

svk

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam v. Union of India Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digvijayant S/O Wasudeo Tumdam v. Union of India Thr. Secty. 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

Kranti Jyoti Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Prashikshan Kendra Thr. Its President Kanchan P. Kambale Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, and Anr.

Smt. Vimalabai Diwakar Kotangale (Kondge) Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Ministry of Urban Development and 2 Others

Miss. Ashadevi D/O Shamandas Bajaj Vs Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 2 Others

Janabai D/O Vithoba (Bari) Dudhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vandana Uddhaorao Matankar Vs Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur Thr. Its Registrar

Smt. Gunabai Wd/O Hiraman Babhare and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, Revenue Dept. (Rehabilitation) Mantralay Mumbai and Others