Allowed

Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad (Chikatwad) v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jul 2013WP/258/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted the petitioner an opportunity of hearing regarding her Scheduled Tribe 'Mahadeo Koli' claim before the Scrutiny Committee and quashed an order invalidating her status, while imposing costs due to her poor prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15-10-2012 is set aside and remitted to the Committee for fresh consideration after the petitioner pays costs and appears before the Committee.

Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-258.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 258 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7902 OF 2013

¶5

Sow. Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad
(Chikatwad) , age 30 years, occupation:
Sarpanch, r/o Pimpaldhav, post Matul,
Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded.. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

01. The State of Maharashtra, trough Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

02. The Collector, Collector Office, Nanded

¶9

03. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Divisional Office, Bhokar, Taluka Bhokar, Dist. Nanded

¶10

04. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Bhokar, Taluka Bhokar, Dist. Nanded

¶11

05. The Deputy Director-cum Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Respondents

¶12

Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate holding for
Mr. P. R. Adkine, Advocate for Petitioners
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for Resps No. 1 to 4
Mr. K.D. Bade Patil Adv. for Resp. No. 5

¶13

wp-258.13

¶14

¶15

CORAM : A. H. JOSHI AND
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : JULY 15, 2013

¶16

Judgment (Per: Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.)

¶17

1.Rule. By consent, rule made returnable and heard
finally.

¶18

2.The Petitioner claims to belong to Scheduled
Tribe 'Mahadeo Koli' and had contested election of
Grampanchayat of village Pimpaldhav and was elected
as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.

¶19

3.After elections, tribe claim of the petitioner
had been referred to the Schedule Tribes Scrutiny
Committee at Aurangabad. It is contended by the
petitioner that though she had engaged an Advocate to
represent her case before the Comittee, the Advocate
had failed to prosecute the matter. She contends that

¶20

she has strong case on merits and sufficient evidence
in her favour to establish that she belongs to the
scheduled tribe 'Mahadeo Koli.'

¶21

4.Petitioner claims that since no hearing could
take place for want of prosecution of the matter on
her behalf, she has been deprived of an opportunity
to present and explain her case.

¶22

wp-258.13

¶23

¶24

5.We had called for the record and proceedings
before the Committee in respect of petitioner's tribe
claim. From perusal of the process sheet, it appears
to be unkempt in this case and is not satisfactory.

¶25

6.Having regard to the overall situation in the
interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to let the
petitioner to have an opportunity of hearing to
represent her case of belonging to Mahadeo Koli before
the Committee. However, having regard to improper
prosecution by petitioner of her tribe claim before
committee, we propose to impose costs on her.

¶26

7.The petitioner has placed on record an affidavit
through her husband, undertaking to pay cost of Rs.
10,000/- to High Court Bar Library, Aurangabad, and
cost of Rs.5000/- to Respondent No.5 Committee.

¶27

8.We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside
the impugned order dated 15-10-2012 passed by
Respondent No.5 Committee, invalidating the tribe
claim of the petitioner of belonging to Scheduled
Tribe Mahadeo Koli and remit the matter to Respondent-
Committee for consideration of the petitioner's claim
afresh, on its own merits.

¶28

wp-258.13

¶29

¶30

9.Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned
order dated 15-10-2012 at Exhibit A to the writ
petition and direct Respondent No.5-Committee to
decide the tribe claim of the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible. As undertaken by the
petitioner, she shall deposit cost within two weeks
from today. Petitioner shall remain present before the
Scrutiny Committee on 5.8.2013 and shall produce
receipt of payment of costs before the Committee on
5.8.2013.

¶31

10.Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid
terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶32

11.Petitioner does not press civil application and
hence, is disposed of as not pressed.

¶33

(SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.)(A. H. JOSHI, J.)

¶34

pnd

Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad (Chikatwad) v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad (Chikatwad) 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

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Dnyanoba Ramkishan Nirwal

Santosh Nagorao Sujlegaonkar Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others

State of Maha Vs Hiraman Damu Jadhav

Gangadhar Balanna Enadle Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and Others

Vinod Bhaskarrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Sandu Thakur Vs the State of Mah and Ors.