Allowed

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

Bombay HC21 Mar 2014WP/1216/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Caste Validity Certificate issued without a reasoned order and restored the matter for inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee, directing an expeditious hearing and reserving merit for later.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Caste Validity Certificate dated 21.03.2009 is quashed and set aside, and the matter of verification of the caste claim is restored to the file of the second Respondent Scrutiny Committee

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1216.13

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1216 OF 2013

¶5

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents

¶6

Ms Helen Koli Mandlik for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader `A' Panel for Resp. nos.1 & 2.

¶8

Mr.Satish L. Maneshinde with Ms Anandini Fernandes i/b. Mr.S.S.Shetty for Respondent no.3.

¶9

….. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : MARCH 21, 2014.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned Asstt. Govt Pleader for Respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent.

¶13

As the impugned Caste Validity Certificate dated 21.03.2009 has been issued by the second Respondent without passing a reasoned order,

¶14

the learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent states that a fresh inquiry may be ordered within a time bound schedule.

¶15

Hence, We dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

wp1216.13

krs

O R D E R

(i) The impugned Caste Validity Certificate dated 21.03.2009 is quashed and set aside and the matter of verification of the caste claim of the third Respondent is restored to the file of the second Respondent Scrutiny Committee;

¶20

(ii) We direct the parties to appear before the second Respondent Scrutiny Committee on 28.03.2014 at 11.00 a.m.;

¶21

(iii) We direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to hold an inquiry in accordance with law, if necessary, by calling for report of the Vigilance Cell;

¶22

(iv) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within two months from 28.03.2014;

¶23

(v) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on merits of the caste claim of Respondent no.3;

¶24

(vi) All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶25

(vii) The Petition is disposed of on the above terms;

¶26

(viii) The parties concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

2 of 2

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad 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?

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad 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

Eco-Cane Sugar Energy Ltd, through Balasaheb D. Desai Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Modern Sugars Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation and Ors.

Eco-Cane Sugar Energy Ltd, through Balasaheb D. Desai Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

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.

Shamshad Begum Shahamad Sheikh Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.