Remanded

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2014WP/3590/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the impugned order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioners' caste. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, granting liberty to file additional evidence and fixing the next hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 6 September 2012 quashed; matter remanded back for reconsideration after giving opportunity to all parties.

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ssm 1

¶2

1wp3590.13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3590 OF 2013

¶6

1 Sunil Murlidhar Thakur, Age- Adult, Occu- Business.

¶7

2 Anil Murlidhar Thakur, Age- Adult, Occu. Self-employed,

¶8

Both R/at : Flat No.1, Krishna Leela Society, Abhiyanta Nagar, CIDCO, Talukar Nashik, District Nashik-8. ….Petitioners.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶11

2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, having office at Godavari Chowk, CBS Road, Nashik. ….Respondents.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Kanetkar for the Petitioners. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondents-State.

¶13

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶14

M.S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 5 MARCH 2014.

¶15

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

1/4

ssm 2

1wp3590.13.sxw

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶20

Learned counsel for the Respondents-state waives service.

¶21

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶22

2 The Petitioners are real brothers.

¶23

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

¶24

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. Strikingly, inspite of reasoned judgment/order passed by this Court in favour of the Petitioners directing the Scrutiny Committee to grant the certificate as claimed, the Scrutiny Committee in question overlooked the same and invalidated the caste of the Petitioners. We are inclined

2/4

ssm 3

1wp3590.13.sxw

to dispose of the present Petition as it requires re-consideration of

¶29

above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 6 September 2012, is quashed and set aside.

¶32

b) The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration.

¶33

c) The Scrutiny Committee to re-consider every aspect, by giving an opportunity to all the parties.

¶34

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

¶35

e) The Petitioners/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 18 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.

3/4

1wp3590.13.sxw

ssm 4

f) In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioners/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.

¶40

g) Rule made absolute in the above terms. h) All the parties to co-operate. i) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Murlidhar Thakur and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Dept 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

Idea Cellulare Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Vishnu Vitthal Yampure and Anr. Vs Sneha Institute of Technology (Shri Shiajiraje Disle Polytechnic Institute) and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Yampure and Anr. Vs Sneha Institute of Technology (Shri Shiajiraje Disle Polytechnic Institute) and Ors.

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidram Nilappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Khurche Rajendra Dashrath Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.