Partly allowed

Padmini Raje Mohite v. Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya Surdas Gaikwad) and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2014WP/2613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a caste validity certificate issued without a procedural inquiry. The matter regarding the caste claim of the respondent was remanded for a fresh inquiry by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, with merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and caste validity certificate are quashed; the matter is remanded to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for a fresh inquiry within four months.

Padmini Raje Mohite Vs Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

WP-2613.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2613 OF 2014

¶5

Padmini Raje Mohite. .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav & Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri S.A. Sawant along with Shri Sachin Kadam for the Petitioner. Shri S.M. Gorwadkar i/by Shri Ravi G. Shinde for Respondent No.1. Shri S.N. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 6. Shri Deepak Ravindra More for Respondent No.5.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶9

On the last date, this Court observed that the caste validity certificate dated 20^th January 2012 issued to the first Respondent by the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been issued without holding an inquiry in accordance with law. This Court also observed that under the statute, after grant of caste validity certificate, reconsideration of the same by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is not permissible.

¶10

On the ground that the caste validity certificate has been granted without holding an inquiry in accordance with law, the learned

ash

WP-2613.14

counsel appearing for the first Respondent on instructions states that the first Respondent has no objection for setting aside the caste validity certificate and for ordering a fresh inquiry.

¶15

In view of the above position, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following order:

¶16

ORDER :

¶17

(a) The impugned order dated 31^st December 2013 as well as the caste validity certificate dated 20^th January 2012 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter of verification of the caste claim of the first Respondent on the basis of the caste certificate dated 22^nd August 2011 is remanded to the concerned Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Pune;

¶18

(b) We direct the Petitioner and the first Respondent to appear before the concerned Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee at Pune on 9^th January 2015 at 11.00 a.m. for fixing a schedule of hearing;

ash

WP-2613.14

(c) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make a de-novo adjudication on the basis of the caste certificate dated 22^nd August 2011 issued to the first Respondent;

¶23

(d) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date fixed for appearance of the parties;

¶24

(e) We make it clear that the caste validity certificate has been set aside only on the ground that the same was issued without holding an appropriate inquiry in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the order dated 31^st December 2013 has been set aside only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction;

¶25

(f) All contentions of the parties on merits of the caste claim are kept open;

ash

WP-2613.14

(g) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall permit the Petitioner and the first Respondent to file additional documents;

¶30

(h) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶31

(i) The concerned parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

Padmini Raje Mohite v. Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya Surdas Gaikwad) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmini Raje Mohite v. Smt. Sandhya Ram Jadhav (Sandhya Surdas Gaikwad) 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

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Dipak Dattatraya Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Namdeo Hambira Babar Annd Ors. Vs Gajanan Bhauso Babar and Ors.

Mrs. Jharna @ Jagruti Yogesh Mehta Vs Mr. Yogesh Anantrai Mehta