Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2014WP/10008/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay disposed of a writ petition seeking Scheduled Tribe certificate. The Court referred to a prior judgment regarding similar Thakur claims, noting the Scrutiny Committee had overlooked earlier directions. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration with liberty to add evidence and an interim stay on adverse orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 30 July 2013 quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration; liberty granted to file additional evidence.

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

11wp10008.13.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10008 OF 2013

¶6

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Aged 33 years, residing at Khadakpada, Goldan Park, Everest Building, E-1, Flat No. 715, Kalyan (W) Mumbai Thane. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, through its Member Secretary, having its office at Vartak Nagar, Ward Committee Office, Vedant Complex, Opposite Kores Company, Vartaknagar, Thane (West), Dist. Thane.

¶10

3 Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai through its Chief Firebrigade Officer (Additional), Byculla, Mumbai-400 008. ….Respondents.

¶11

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen Koli-Mandlik for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State.

1/4

11wp10008.13.sxw

ssm 2

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 5 MARCH 2014.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶17

In earlier Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin

¶18

Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with two other connected matters on 26 February 2014, by a common reasoned Judgment/order disposed of similarly situated Petitions with regard to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribes claims and therefore, for the same reasons, as the facts and issues are similar i.e. “non-consideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of law by the Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restrictionremoval” and “the caste certificates of relatives” based upon similar wrongly framed issues, as the same goes to the root of the matter. Strikingly, inspite of reasoned judgment/order passed by this Court in favour of the Petitioner directing the Scrutiny Committee to grant the certificate as claimed, the Scrutiny Committee in question overlooked the same and invalidated the caste of the Petitioner. We are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires re-consideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

2/4

11wp10008.13.sxw

ssm 3

ORDER

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 30 July 2013, is quashed and set aside.

¶24

b) The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration.

¶25

c) The Scrutiny Committee to re-consider every aspect, by giving an opportunity to all the parties.

¶26

d) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner/parties to apply before the Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary material.

¶27

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 18 March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of Judgment/Order.

¶28

f) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioner/Claimant, the same should

3/4

11wp10008.13.sxw

ssm 4

not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four

¶33

weeks thereafter from the date of communication of

¶34

the order.

¶35

g) Rule made absolute in the above terms. h) All the parties to co-operate. i) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

j) The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court in Writ Petition/ Civil Application to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

¶37

k) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this Judgment/order.

¶38

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

¶39

4/4

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare v. State of Maharashtra 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

Idea Cellulare Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Vishnu Vitthal Yampure and Anr. Vs Sneha Institute of Technology (Shri Shiajiraje Disle Polytechnic Institute) and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Yampure and Anr. Vs Sneha Institute of Technology (Shri Shiajiraje Disle Polytechnic Institute) and Ors.

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Anr.

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.