Disposed

Shri. Kailas Balasaheb Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014WP/1646/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a petition concerning the inclusion of the Kaidadi Community in Scheduled Castes. Noting a communication from the Social Justice Department, the Court directed the Union of India to consider the State's proposals for inclusion and decide within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Union of India to consider State's proposals for S.C. inclusion and decide within six months.

Shri. Kailas Balasaheb Jadhav Vs the State of… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-1646.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1646 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Kailas S/o. Balasaheb Jadhav. .. Petitioner. Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another. .. Respondents –

¶6

Shri M.S. Karnik for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha for Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 1ST DECEMBER 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record a communication issued to the Petitioner on 15^th November 2014 by the Public Information Officer of the State Government under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A copy of the letter dated 7^th October 2014 addressed by the Secretary of the Social Justice & Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi was supplied to the Petitioner. It refers to a decision of the Cabinet of the State Government to recommend to the Government of India for inclusion of Kaidadi Community in the entire State of Maharashtra in the list of Scheduled Castes (both in Vidarbha as well as other parts of the State of Maharashtra) so as to give justice to the said

¶10

ash 2 wp-1646.13

¶11

Community. By the said letter, a request was made to the Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to move the Government of India to do the needful.

¶12

The communication dated 15^th November 2014 along with a letter 7^th October 2014 are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. If the Union of India agrees with the proposals submitted by the State, necessary enactment will have to be made for the purposes of amending the order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Hence, the prayer (a) of this Petition is worked out in view of the communication dated 7^th October 2014 and the decision taken by the State. As far as the prayer clause (b) of this Petition is concerned, we direct the second Respondent Union of India to consider the proposals submitted by the State of Maharashtra on 7^th October 2014 and to take appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today.

¶14

Subject to the above directions, the Petition is disposed of.

Shri. Kailas Balasaheb Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kailas Balasaheb Jadhav v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kupwad Vivid Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha, Kupwad through Its Chairman Vs the Honble Minister, Ministry of Food and Ors.

New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Ampsons Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prathamesh Constructions, through Partner, Mr. Shirish Riswadkar Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and Ors.

Swastik Industrial Corporation through Its Partner Nilesh Pradeep Chatranband Vs the State of Maharashtra Throgh Its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut, through Poa, Mr. Ramesh Maruti Bhekre Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.

Akhil Chandramangar Mitramandal, through Secretary, Mr. Kamalakar Gulabrao Salvi Vs Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.