Disposed

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/11202/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11202 of 2013 ordered the disposal of a petition challenging a caste certificate in similar terms to a connected matter involving the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee was quashed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration with liberty to present additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to present additional evidence and appearance by April 2, 2014.

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss 1

¶2

wp 11202.13 (907).sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11202 OF 2013

¶6

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad Aged 20 years, Occu. Nil Residing at Sai Bunglow, Vinayak Park, Haripur Taluka Miraj, Dist. Sangli. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune, through its Deputy Director & Member-Secretary, having its office at 28, Queen's Garden, Airport Road, Pune-411 001.

¶10

3 Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Madha Sub Division, Kurduwadi Dist. Solapur. ….Respondents.

¶11

Mr. C.K. Bhangoji i/b Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶13

M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 19 MARCH 2014.

¶14

1/4

¶15

dss 2

¶16

wp 11202.13 (907).sxw

¶17

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

¶18

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service.

¶20

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶21

2 The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner-student, as

¶22

her caste certificate is invalidated by the Competent Authority.

¶23

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

¶24

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, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires re-

¶25

2/4

¶26

dss 3

¶27

wp 11202.13 (907).sxw

¶28

consideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 21^st September 2013, is quashed and set aside.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 2^nd April 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.

¶35

f) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order

¶36

3/4

¶37

dss 4

¶38

wp 11202.13 (907).sxw

¶39

against the Petitioner/Claimant, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhura Bhaskar 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

Mr. Vicky Dharamdeep Jambhulkar and Ors. Vs Sau. Devibai Narayandas Chhabada Rural Education Society and Anr.

Rupali Panchappa Kalyanshetti Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Nikunj Janak Gor Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Anu Hassan Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, and 2 Ors.

Shri. Abdul Khalique Ansari Vs the State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.