Remanded

Subhadrabai Rameshchandra Kodgirkar for Minor Son v. Staete of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Jun 2014WP/2792/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP no. 2792 of 1999, this High Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribes caste certificate. The decision was set aside due to failure to refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell as required by Madhuri Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes Rules, 2003. The matter was remitted to the Committee for fresh decision within

What did the court decide?

The order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's caste certificate was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision within one yea

Subhadrabai Rameshchandra Kodgirkar for Minor… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

931 WP.2792.99.sxw

¶3

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2792 OF 1999

¶5

Smt. Subhadrabai w/o Rameshchandra Kodgirkar, age 40 years, Occupation Household, on behalf of her minor son namely - Deepak Rameshchandra Kodgirkar, r/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District – Beed. ... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra (Through : Government Pleader, High Court Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad.) 2. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Verification Committee, through its Secretary i.e. Dy. Director (R), M.S. Nasik. 3 The Taluka Executive Magistrate, Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.G.Karlekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr. P.S.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2. -----

¶9

CORAM : R. M. BORDE and V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 19^th June, 2014.

931 WP.2792.99.sxw

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1 The Petitioner is assailing the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 15^th February, 1996 directing invalidation of the Caste Certificate issued in his favour certifying that he belongs to Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe. The challenge is raised solely on the ground that the decision of the Committee is vitiated on account of failure to refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell for conducting home and field inquiry. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in view of the decision of the

¶14

Madhuri Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in [AIR (1995) Supreme Court 94 ] , it was incumbent upon the Scrutiny Committee to refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry and take decision as regards validation of caste certificate only after receipt of the report from

¶15

the Vigilance Cell. It is not a matter of dispute that in the State of Maharashtra, the Vigilance Cell has been constituted since the year 1997 on the strength of directives issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil (supra). The State of Maharashtra has issued an enactment i.e. the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulations of

¶16

¶17

931 WP.2792.99.sxw

¶18

Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and has also framed rules i.e. Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulations of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 prescribing the procedure for verification of the claims. The matters in respect of verification of the Tribe Certificates shall have to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2003 and by a Committee constituted in observance of the aforesaid Rules. The Act of 2000 as well as the Rules of 2003 prescribe procedure in respect of verification of the status claim and thus provide reference of the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for inquiry. Since the mandatory procedure in respect of making reference of the matters to the Vigilance Cell has not been adhered to, the impugned decision rendered by the Scrutiny Committee on 15^th February, 1996 directing invalidation of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad constituted under the Rules of 2003. The Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad shall after observing the procedure of the Rules of 2003 and the Act of 2000, shall proceed to take a decision in respect of the validation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad shall take decision in

¶19

¶20

931 WP.2792.99.sxw

¶21

the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today. The Petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad on 14^th July, 2014 and as such, no separate notice is required to the Petitioner for ensuring his presence before the Scrutiny Committee. It is informed that the Petitioner has completed his graduation as well as post graduation in medical courses and as such, no adverse action be initiated against the Petitioner. Apart from this, since the order directing invalidation of his caste certificate has been quashed and set aside, there is no scope for proceeding against the Petitioner.

¶22

2 Rule is made absolute on above terms. No cots.

¶23

[ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ R. M. BORDE, J. ]

¶24

ndm

Subhadrabai Rameshchandra Kodgirkar for Minor Son v. Staete of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhadrabai Rameshchandra Kodgirkar for Minor Son v. Staete of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Magan Visram Sasake (Dhangar) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tulshiram Eknathrao Kolhe Vs Shri Shrikant Deshpande and Others

Dr. Pushpa Raosaheb Machale @ Dr. Pushpa Baburao Somwanshi Vs the Registrar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University and Ors.

Namdeo Shripat Nalawade Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Chintaman Shivram Sonwane Vs State of Maharahstra and Others

Nandlal Murlidhar Taksali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another