Quashed

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange v. Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014WP/301/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Caste Validity Certificate granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee due to gross errors in conducting a proper vigilance inquiry and failing to record reasons. The matter was remitted for fresh inquiry within six months while keeping merit contentions open.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and Caste Validity Certificate quashed; matter remitted to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh inquiry and reasoned order. Contentions on merits kept open.

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange Vs Mr. Sachin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Rng 1

¶2

wp301.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2012

¶4

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange .. Petitioner

¶5

¶6

Sachin Vasant Bhosale & ors .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.P.G.Jagdale for Petitioner Mr.G.S.Hiranandani i/b Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for Respondent No.1 Mr.V.S.Gokhale AGPfor Respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM: A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI,JJ DATE: 7TH OCTOBER, 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By an order dated 16^th September, 2014 parties were put to notice

¶11

that the Petition will be heard finally at the stage of Admission.

¶12

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶13

the Petitioner has taken an exception to the order of the 3^rd Respondent by which the caste claim of the 1^st Respondent that he belong to caste 'Kunbi' which is notified as Other Backward class has been upheld.

¶14

The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that

¶15

there was no proper inquiry held by Caste Scrutiny Committee. His

¶16

Rng 2

¶17

wp301.12

¶18

submission is that the vigilance cell verified only four documents submitted by the 4^th Respondent and no independent inquiry as contemplated by the Rules was made. Moreover, he urged that no reasons have been recorded by the Caste Scrutiny committee for upholding the caste claim. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent who has supported the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶19

There is no reasoned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for granting the caste validity certificate. However, certain observations have been made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the roznama. In the roznama, there is not even a reference to the vigilance cell inquiry. There is no detailed discussion made on the documents on which reliance was placed by the 1^st Respondent. There is no verification of the genealogy relied upon by the 1st Respondent through the vigilance cell.

¶20

According to us, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed a gross error by not ordering proper inquiry by vigilance cell and by recording even brief reasons for upholding the caste claim of the 1^st Respondent. As

¶21

wp301.12

¶22

Rng 3

¶23

there is no proper inquiry held by the 1^st Respondent, by setting aside the impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee will have to be directed to hold a fresh inquiry.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner wants to rely upon certain documents which according to him show that the caste claim of the 1^st Respondent deserves to be negatived. The documents will have to be produced by the Petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶25

7. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶26

(i) The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the Caste Validity Certificate granted to the 1^st Respondent are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶27

(ii) The matter of the verification of the caste claim of the 1^st Respondent is remitted to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee no.1 Mumbai Division, having its office at Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-400 614;

¶28

(iii) The Petitioner and the 1^st Respondent are directed to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 31^st October, 2014 at 11 a.m. for a fixed date of hearing;

¶29

(iv) It will be open for the Petitioner as well as for the 1^st Respondent to file additional documents;

¶30

(v) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall order a fresh vigilance inquiry;

¶31

Rng 4

¶32

wp301.12

¶33

(vi) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from 31^st October, 2014.

¶34

(vii) All contentions on merits of the caste claim of the 1st Respondent are kept

¶35

open.

¶36

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶37

(G.S.Kulkarni, J) (A.S.Oka, J)

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange v. Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange v. Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale 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

Krishnath Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Balgonda Jangonda Patil Vs Union of India, Thorugh Dept of Petroleum, Navi Delhi and Ors.

Federation of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Association Vs State of Maharahstra and Anr.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge Vs the Municipal Council, Kagal and Ors.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.