Disposed

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. v. the Union of India through Ministry of Law of Judiciary Govt of India New Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2013WP/3282/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging reservation inequities in tribal areas was not adjudicated on merits. The court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority, asking them to consider the grievance within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to make representation to competent authority to consider grievance regarding reservation within specified period.

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. Vs the Union… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2011

¶3

HARI LIMJI PATIL AND ORS VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

¶4

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri M.M.Bhokarikar ASG for Respondent No.1 & 2 : Shri Alok Sharma AGP for Respondents 3 to 6 : Shri P.P.More Advocate for Respondent 8 : Shri Pravin Patil Advocate for Respondent 9 : Shri Uday S. Malte

¶5

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 12, 2013

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

1. Heard respective counsel.

¶8

Learned Advocate Shri Bhokarikar for the petitioners attempts to demonstrate inconsistency between population of tribal area and reservation provided therein for the members of the Zilla Parishad or Ward Members of the Village Panchayat. The effort is on the basis of a Government Resolution dated 9.3.1990. Said Government Resolution is on " आििवासीउपयोजनाकेत". It's perusal reveals no mention of even election or any reservation for a elected representative.

¶9

Shri Bhokarikar submits that on the last occasion, when the matter was herd, the respondents were orally directed to file reply but still no reply has been filed. He states that the challenge has been made in the background of 2001 election, after noticing that though in several areas, population of Scheduled Tribes was in excess of 50%, no seat therein was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate.

¶10

akl

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 3282 OF 2011

¶14

Learned AGP appearing for respondents 3 to 6, learned Advocates appearing for respondents 8 and 9 respectively submit that reservation is not static and always fluctuate in rotation in the manner prescribed under the Rules. According to them, therefore, in a ward, where particular backward community may be very less, still because of rotation reservation therefor may surface.

¶15

We are not inclined to go into the controversy.

¶16

We direct the petitioner to make appropriate representation to the competent authority in this respect within a period of six weeks from today. If such representation is made, said respondent shall consider the grievance in accordance with law within further period of four months.

¶17

With these directions, we dispose of the present petition with no order as to costs.

¶18

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

¶19

akl

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. v. the Union of India through Ministry of Law of Judiciary Govt of India New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Limji Patil and Ors. v. the Union of India through Ministry of Law of Judiciary Govt of India New Delhi 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

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Manoj Dayaram Chaudhari Vs Sunil Supadu Mahajan and Ors.

Ashok Rabhaji Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sidtarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nalanda Education Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others