Allowed

Amol Ashok Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2014RPW/24/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the Review Petition in a case concerning Scheduled Tribe status. The court revoked the impugned order remanding the matter for reconsideration and granted liberty to file additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition allowed; Impugned order dated 30.09.2010 revoked; Scrutiny Committee order dated 25.05.2010 quashed; Matter remanded for reconsideration.

Amol Ashok Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

RPW-24-13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 24 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5799 OF 2010

¶5

Amol Ashok Gaikwad .. Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. A. P. Vanarase i/b. Somidha Dongre for Petitioner. Ms M. S. Bane - “B” Panel for State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶8

DATE: March 10, 2014

¶9

P.C . :-

¶10

1] Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶11

2] The Petitioner who claims to belong to a Scheduled Tribe (Thakur, Thakar) filed this Review Petition against the order dated 30.09.2010 basically on the ground of discovery of substantial documents which according to him goes to the root of the matter as to substantiate his caste claim.

¶12

3] After considering the averments made and also for the reason

¶13

that this court in the case of Madhuri Nitin Jadhav vs. State of

1/3

skc

RPW-24-13

Maharashtra & Anr. Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 & others decided on 26.02.2014 already remanded back the matter for reconsideration basically of related issue of 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe.

¶18

4] In view of this and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this review petition and permit the Petitioner to file additional documents before the Scrutiny Committee. The Review Petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 30.09.2010 is revoked. The matter is remanded back for consideration on all points.

¶19

5] Resultantly, the following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

a. Review Petition is allowed.

¶22

b. Impugned order dated 30.09.2010 is revoked.

¶23

c. Order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 25.05.2010 is quashed and set aside.

¶24

d. Matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration. The Scrutiny Committee to reconsider every aspect, by giving opportunity to all concerned.

¶25

e. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply before the Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral

2/3

skc

RPW-24-13

as well as, documentary material.

¶30

f. The Petitioner to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee on 18^th March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and programme accordingly with endeavour to dipose of the matter as early as possible and within four months from the date of receipt of judgment / order.

¶31

g. In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioner, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order.

¶32

h. All the parties to co-operate.

¶33

i. Review Petition is disposed of.

¶34

j. The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

¶35

k. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

l. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this judgment / order.

¶37

(M. S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶38

Chandka

¶39

3/3

Amol Ashok Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Ashok Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidram Nilappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Tagare and Ors. Vs Mr. Rajiv Madhav Madane and Anr.

Shamrao Sakharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept and Ors.

Union of India through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Reveneu and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kumar Mahto and Ors.

Amol Ashok Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.