Remanded

Priyanka Sukdeo Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Feb 2014WP/1362/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench quashed an ex-parte order invalidating a student's caste claim. The court set aside the decision on merits, ordered a fresh hearing within two months, and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner to ensure prompt compliance.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the Divisional Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside on condition of payment of Rs. 10,000 costs.

Priyanka Sukdeo Sonawane Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

( 1 ) Writ Petition No.1362 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1362 OF 2014

¶4

Priyanka Sukdeo Sonawane PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr.P.B.Prakashsing, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Additional G.P. for respondent / State.

¶8

(CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND

¶9

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ.)

¶10

DATE : 14/02/2014

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order

¶13

passed on 31/12/2013 of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No.4), invalidating her caste claim towards "Rajput Bhamta Tribe", which is recognized as Vimukta Jati. The petitioner's grievance is that this order is ex-parte and that she, being a minor

¶14

and taking education, one more opportunity be given to her to

¶15

substantiate her claim towards the said Vimukta Jati.

¶16

( 2 ) Writ Petition No.1362 of 2014

¶17

From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition. She has been enrolled as a student for the Bachelor of Pharmacy Course from Reserved category. Presently, she is in the 2^nd year. Her claim towards Vimukta Jati was forwarded for verification and scrutiny of this Committee by the Principal of College on 18/07/2010. Since she was issued a notice that the claim should be validated before a particular date, but having found that the same was not validated that she approached this Court. The Committee has given undertaking to this Court that it will dispose of the petitioner’s pending claim within 6 (six) months from 06/08/2013.

¶18

3. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to have

¶19

appeared before the said Committee. The Committee has found that despite notice being given, duly served, the petitioner did not appear on three dates. It is, in these circumstances that the Committee proceeded ex-parte. We do not find any fault with the approach of the Committee for having been compelled to proceed ex-parte. It was entirely the fault of the petitioner.

¶20

( 3 ) Writ Petition No.1362 of 2014

¶21

We are not impressed by the argument that because of illiteracy

¶22

or poverty or lack of knowledge of legal proceedings that the petitioner did not approach the Committee or appear before it. However, on merits, we find that there is a claim laid by the petitioner

¶23

and relying on the caste validity certificate issued to Ratan Narayan Patil. It is stated that Ratan Patil and the petitioner's grand father

¶24

and great grand father are ancestors of Aba Patil. If Ratan Patil is

¶25

from the same family and the petitioner's great grand father and Ratan's great grand father were real brothers and claiming through a common ancestor, then, the Committee should have been cautious enough in rejecting the caste validity certificate issued to the Member of the same family.

¶26

We find that the Committee has gone by certain general assumptions and without finding out as to why the claim cannot be accepted relying on this caste validity certificate that the Committee proceeded to invalidate the claim. The Committee has found that the petitioner's immediate relatives or her parents have not been able to produce any document and of the past indicating that the petitioner's ancestors were belonging to this Tribe. We would expect the

¶27

( 4 ) Writ Petition No.1362 of 2014

¶28

Committee to render such conclusive findings after a scrutiny of the genealogy and complete record. The Committee has been impressed

¶29

by the fact that the petitioner did not attend the proceedings or hearing. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be served

¶30

if the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside, but on certain conditions.

¶31

The order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the Divisional Scrutiny

¶32

Committee / respondent No. 4 is quashed and set aside on the condition that the petitioner pays costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- and which shall be paid to the Member Secretary of The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik-2, at Dhule and within 2 (two) weeks from today. The petitioner, after payment of costs as directed, shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 03/03/2014. No separate notice

¶33

of such attendance or the dates following the same shall be issued and it would be the duty of the petitioner to attend all dates of hearing by keeping all record with her. The Committee to scrutinize the claim, as expeditiously as possible, after the date of attendance of

¶34

the petitioner but on or before 31/05/2014. The petition is disposed

¶35

of by clarifying that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival

¶36

( 5 ) Writ Petition No.1362 of 2014

¶37

contentions. We keep them open for being raised in an appropriate case and we expect the Committee to scrutinize and verify the claim

¶38

on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by its earlier observations and findings. The fresh order be passed before 31/05/2014.

¶39

The petitioner may pursue her studies in the Course, at the concerned College, at her own risk and without claiming any equities. Needless to clarify that the petitioner can pursue her studies provided that she has cleared her 1st year Bachelor of Pharmacy Course. All this will be at her own risk and she will not be in a

¶40

position to claim any equities.

¶41

( RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶42

khs/Feb,2014/wp1362-14

Priyanka Sukdeo Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sukdeo Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Manda Lakhichand Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad Vs Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Aurangabad Vs Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Sayed Furkhan Shah Sayed Sadiq Shah Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Iqbal Ahmed Shaikh Mohammed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Atmaram Shesrao Hinge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.