Dismissed

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2014CAW/707/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petitioner's prayer for interim relief in a writ petition concerning her caste classification and refusal of the obligation to produce special intercaste reservation.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for interim relief is rejected; Civil Application No. 707 of 2014 is disposed of.

What the court decided

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

wp8934

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8934 OF 2013
 WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.707 OF 2014

¶5

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 24, 2014

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1 The order dated 11^th March 2014 reads thus:

¶10

“After fully arguing the Petition, the
learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner seeks time to take instructions
whether the Petitioner wants to take
benefit of recent Government Resolution
dated 1st March 2014.

¶11

2To be placed high upon board on 24th
March 2014 along with Civil Application
No.707 of 2014.”

¶12

2Notwithstanding the said order, today the
learned counsel for the petitioner insists on
arguing the petition on merits. When we made it
clear that we are not inclined to grant interim

¶13

2 wp8934

¶14

relief, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes
a bold statement before this Court that passing an
order refusing the interim relief will be height of
injustice.

¶15

3At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner states on instructions of his client
that not only the petitioner but he himself is
tendering apology for making such kind of
submissions. We accept the apology.

¶16

4Rule. The learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3
waives service. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. By the impugned order, the caste claim
of the petitioner that she belongs to caste `Wani'
which is notified as Other Backward Class has been
invalidated. It is not in dispute that initially the
petitioner obtained caste certificate on the footing

¶17

that she belongs to caste `Vaishya wani'.
Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a fresh caste
certificate on the ground that she belongs to caste
`Wani'.

¶18

5Perusal of the impugned order shows that the
entry made in the school record of the petitioner
shows that she belongs to caste `Vaishya wani'. Even
the entry made in the school record of her brother
shows that he belongs to caste `Vaishya wani'. The
entry made in the school record of her sister also
shows that she belongs to caste `Vaishya wani'.

¶19

6There is a Government Resolution issued on 1st

¶20

3 wp8934

¶21

March 2014 by which apart from caste `Wani', the
`Vaishya wanis' have been included in the category
of Other Backward Class.

¶22

7It cannot be ignored that initially the
petitioner obtained the caste certificate disclosing
that she belongs to caste `Vaishya wani' and the
petitioner subsequently applied and obtained a caste
certificate showing that she belongs to caste `Wani'
her school record shows that she belongs to caste
`Vaishya wani'.

¶23

8Reliance is placed on entries made in the
school records of the petitioner's father, father's
sister and uncle. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has
observed that the entries in the school record of
the petitioner, her sister and her brother have been
actively or consciously made and the same thing
cannot be said to be in relation to the entries made
in the school record of the petitioner's father,
father's sister and father's brother.

¶24

9Considering the nature of findings of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee and the conduct of the petitioner
as indicated above, this is not a fit case where
interim relief can be granted. Prayer for interim
relief is rejected. Civil Application No. 707 of
2014 is disposed of.

¶25

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept 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

Smt. Kamal Khangonda Patil Vs Municipal Council of Ichalkaranji, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Mr. Bashir Nijam Desai and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited Vs Bank of India

Sindhu-Bhumi Foundation Vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Anr.

Shri. Vishnu Shivaji Vyawahare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.