Allowed

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jun 2014WP/2170/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a caste validity certificate issued without a vigilance report or speaking order. It directed the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee to adjudicate the caste claim afresh within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the caste validity certificate; directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to adjudicate the caste claim afresh within four months.

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

DeshmanePPD

13.WP.2170-13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2170 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Priyal Sarda, for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Rahul D. Ramnath i/b. Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for Respondent No.5

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 24^th JUNE, 2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Time is sought on behalf of the fifth respondent. On 9^th June, 2014, this Court passed an order directing that no further time shall be granted.

¶15

Today, the learned AGP on instructions states that the impugned caste validity certificate dated 11^th March, 2011 has been issued without calling for the vigilance cell report and without passing a speaking order.

¶16

In view of the said statement, by setting aside the impugned caste validity certificate, the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to be directed to adjudicate upon the caste

1 / 3

PPD

13.WP.2170-13.doc

claim of the fifth respondent in accordance with law.

¶22

As far as prayers (B) and (C) are concerned, no relief can be granted as of today and the remedy of the petitioner is to file appropriate proceedings after conclusion of the fresh enquiry by the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to be kept open.

¶23

Accordingly, we pass the following order :-

¶24

i. The impugned caste validity certificate dated 11^th March,2011 (Exhibit-A to the Petition) is quashed and set aside;

¶25

ii. The caste claim of the fifth respondent shall be heard and decided afresh by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Solapur. We direct the petitioner and the fifth respondent to appear before the said Caste Scrutiny Committee on Monday, 14^th July, 2014 for fixing the schedule of the hearing;

¶26

iii. It will be open for both the parties to produce additional documents;

¶27

iv. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make adjudication on the caste claim of the fifth respondent in accordance with law and shall pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from 14^th July, 2014;

¶28

v. We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication

2 / 3

PPD

13.WP.2170-13.doc

on the merits of the caste claim of the fifth respondent and all contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶34

vi. As regards, the prayers (B) & (C), we grant a liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings after the final order is passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the caste claim of the fifth respondent;

¶35

vii. The Petition is disposed of on the above terms;

¶36

viii. The parties concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶38

3 / 3

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil 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. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suvir Indru Mirchandani Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Abutalab Samsher Golandaj and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Suvir Indru Mirchandani Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Ramesh Revansiddha Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Mr. Prakash Rajaram Taware Vs the Bhiwandi Nijampur City Municipal Corporation, Islampura and Anr.

Shri. Gautam Vishnu Kamble, through Power of Attorney, Shri. Babu Hira Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.