Quashed

Ashutosh Eknath Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC4 Sept 2013WP/4807/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order denying his 'Kunbi' OBC validity. The High Court quashed the order, noting the Committee failed to provide due notice regarding the dubious authenticity of old documents or a chance to verify them, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter returned to committee for fresh consideration with 8-month deadline.

Ashutosh Eknath Supekar Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2013

¶4

Ashutosh s/o. Eknath Supekar Age 22 years, Occ. Education, R/o. Aurved Mahavidyalaya, Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar.

¶5

.. PETITIONER/S

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1] The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.

¶8

2] The Caste Scrutiny Committee, No.2, Latur, Dist. Latur.

¶9

3] The Principlal,

¶10

Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Shevgaon, Taluka Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶11

.. RESPONDENT/S

¶12

Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi. AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶13

CORAM :- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶14

DATE :- 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2013.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.P. DHARMADHIMARI,J] :-

¶16

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶17

¶18

2] Petitioner, a student of BAMS (2^nd Year) has assailed order dated 8^th August, 2013, denying him validity as belonging to “Kunbi” OBC. Advocate Shri Jaybhar submits that denial is only because of a finding of alleged interpolation. He submits that the brother of the petitioner, by name, Prashant has been given validity on 22.4.2008 and hence, validity can not be denied to the present petitioner.

¶19

3] We have perused the impugned order. The impugned order refers to the said validity in para.8 and then discards it, after referring to the judgment of this court. It is to be noted that in para.4 and 5, the old documents produced by the petitioner are found doubtful because word “Kunbi” is written in different ink and different handwriting.

¶20

4] This finding is based upon the observation made by the Vigilance Cell authorities. The committee, therefore, has not itself looked into said documents after due notice and opportunity to petitioner. The order of the Scrutiny Committee does not expressly show that Vigilance Report was made available to the petitioner. It also does not show that when the concerned Head Master produced original records on 15.11.2011, whether the petitioner was available and whether he was given an opportunity to peruse those records or to lead any evidence, in relation thereto.

¶21

5] If after perusal of same records validity was given to Prashant, the Committee could not have taken a different view, as has been held by the Division Bench of this court in “Apoorva Vijay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee ”

¶22

¶23

reported in 2011(2) BCR 824.

¶24

6] We find that the Scrutiny Committee has not properly appreciated the controversy. Hence, we pass the following order :-

¶25

[a] The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶26

[b] Matter is placed back before the committee for its fresh consideration.

¶27

[c] We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2 committee on 21^st October, 2013 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Petitioner shall appear before the committee alongwith any elderly family member.

¶28

[d] The Committee shall complete the verification of the tribe claim of the petitioner in accordance with Act The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Castes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Maharashtra Act No. XIII of 2001), as early as possible, and in any case within further period of eight months.

¶29

[e] Rule is partly made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶30

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,J]

¶31

[B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J]

¶32

grt/-.

Ashutosh Eknath Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Eknath Supekar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Syed Abdul Wahab Abdul Aziz Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Motichand Hukumchand Bundelkandi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Shahurao Bawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kacharu Hiralal Bahure Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gram Panchayat, Koparda and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao Himatrao Joshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others