Disposed

Tukaram Yogaji Shirsath and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2013WP/2678/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of a caste claim. The court directed petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee to present objections and inspect records regarding respondent No.4's claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 30.9.2013 to submit objections and inspect documents regarding respondent No.4's caste claim.

Tukaram Yogaji Shirsath and Anr. Vs the Chief Executive… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP/2678/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2678 OF 2012

¶5

TUKARAM YOGAJI SHIRSATH AND ANR VERSUS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD BEED AND ORS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Sandeep S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondents: Shri S.K.Tambe Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri S.A.Nagarsoge h/f Shri N.L.Jadhav Advocate for Respondent 3 : Shri S.T.Shelke Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri R.D.Dhorde, Sr. Advocate i/ b Shri V.M.Humbe

¶7

Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri A.C.Darandale

¶8

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 10, 2013

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

The petitioners seek Writ of Quo-warranto. Submission is, validity

¶11

procured by respondent No.4 is by using documents of respondent No.5.

¶12

During hearing, we find that the validity given to respondent No.4 was earlier questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.4472 of 2012 and in that Writ Petition, this Court has expedited the proceedings before Scrutiny Committee, where the Scrutiny Committee is investigating into this aspect.

¶13

By order in Writ Petition No.4472 of 2012 passed on 28.1.2013, time of six months was given to the committee to complete the proceedings. That time has already expired and learned AGP is seeking time of two weeks to find out status of the proceedings, presently pending before respondent No.2.

¶14

WP/2678/2012

¶15

¶16

Writ Petition No.4472 of 2012 was filed by some other person. Because of the order passed therein, validity of respondent No.4 is being looked into by respondent No.2. Impersonation basically raises some disputed questions and may also require recording of some evidence. Such investigation in to validity is already undertaken by respondent No.2 Committee. We find that it is necessary for the petitioners to participate in those proceedings before respondent No.2 and to point out their case pleaded before this Court and make an attempt to substantiate it.

¶17

If this opportunity is not granted and in case respondent No.2 again come with order in favour of respondent No.4, present contentions will again tend to reopen that validity. In order to have a logical end to this exercise, we direct the petitioners to appear before respondent No.2 Committee on 30.9.2013 and to submit their objection to the caste claim of respondent No. 6. Respondent No.2 shall permit the petitioners to inspect the documents / records with it and then proceed further with consideration of their grievance along with the exercise of investigation into the caste claim of Respondent No.4 in accordance with the 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 (Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001). Said exercise shall be completed as early as possible and preferably in any case within further three months.

¶18

WP/2678/2012

¶19

¶20

With this directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the present Writ Petition with no order as to costs.

¶21

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶22

akl

Tukaram Yogaji Shirsath and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Yogaji Shirsath and Anr. v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed 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

Neeraj Annasaheb Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Imamsaheb Ismail Saheb(Died)L.Rs.Mehtab and Ors. Vs Gaurishankar Mohanlal Vyas

Anand Krishna Mahakal and Others Vs Kishan Sayaji Shelke and Another

M/S.Vegneshwara Construction, Sangli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Anam Mohd. Moobin Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Srinivas Dattatraya Mante Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others