Remanded

Digambar Namdeo Sonawane v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Anr.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2014WP/3479/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe certificate. The matter was remanded to the Committee for reconsideration, with liberty to file additional evidence and a fixed return date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration; liberty granted to file additional evidence; parties directed to appear on 26 March 2014.

Digambar Namdeo Sonawane Vs Scheduled… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ssm 1

¶2

19-wp3479.13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3479 OF 2013

¶6

Digambar Namdeo Sonawane, Age 52 years, Occu. Service, R/o, Jaldhara Housing Society, Soygaon Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, Gadkari Chowk, CBS Road, Nashik Dist. Nashik. Through its Member Secretary.

¶9

2 Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Bandcam Vibhag, Malegaon, Tq. Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. ….Respondents.

¶10

Mr. V.A. Sugdare a/w Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Pitale for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 11 MARCH 2014.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

1/4

ssm 2

19-wp3479.13.sxw

The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 16

¶17

November 2012, whereby the Caste Scrutiny Committee, invalidated his caste certificate.

¶18

2 In earlier Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin

¶19

Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with two other connected matters on 26 February 2014, by a common reasoned Judgment/order disposed of similarly situated Petitions with regard to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribes claims and therefore, for the same reasons, as the facts and issues are similar i.e. “non-consideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of law by the Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restrictionremoval” and “the caste certificates of relatives” based upon similar wrongly framed issues, as the same goes to the root of the matter, we

¶20

are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires reconsideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 16 November 2012, is quashed and set aside.

¶23

b) The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny

2/4

ssm 3

19-wp3479.13.sxw

Committee, for reconsideration.

¶28

c) The Scrutiny Committee to re-consider every aspect,

¶29

by giving an opportunity to all the parties.

¶30

d) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner/parties to apply before the Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary material.

¶31

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 26 March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of Judgment/Order.

¶32

f) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioner/Claimant, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order.

¶33

g) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

3/4

19-wp3479.13.sxw

ssm 4

h) All the parties to co-operate.

¶38

i) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

j) The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court in Writ Petition/ Civil Application to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

¶40

k) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this Judgment/order.

¶41

3 In case the Petitioner is succeed before the Scrutiny Committee and/or order is passed in his favour, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply for reinstatement, if any.

¶42

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶43

4/4

Digambar Namdeo Sonawane v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Namdeo Sonawane v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amol Ashok Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Shamrao Sakharam Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept and Ors.

Union of India through Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Reveneu and Ors. Vs Mahesh Kumar Mahto and Ors.

Dr. Venkat Govind Mekale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Sanjay Bajirao More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.