Remanded

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2014WP/4259/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the quashing of the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe caste certificate. The High Court relied on a recently disposed connected matter regarding similar 'Thakur' tribe claims and found the scrutiny committee's issues were wrongly framed, warranting reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 23rd March 2009 quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to add evidence; liberty granted to oppose adverse orders by Scrutiny Committee for

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss 1

¶2

wp 4259.09-G.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4259 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1971 OF 2010 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4259 OF 2009

¶6

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi Aged 24 years, Occu. Nil Residing at Laxmi Niwas, Opp. Navrang Society, Behind Gandhi Nagar Ramdas Swami Nagar, Nashik. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, through its Deputy Director & Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Bhavan, Old Agra Road, Dist. Nashi.

¶10

3 Director, Technical Education and Competent Authority, Maharashtra State, having its office at 3, Mahapalika Marg, Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 001, VJTI, Matunga ….Respondents.

1/5

dss 2

wp 4259.09-G.sxw

Mr. C.K. Bhangoji i/b Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶15

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 19 MARCH 2014.

¶16

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

¶17

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶18

Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service.

¶19

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶20

2 The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner-student, as

¶21

his caste certificate is invalidated by the Competent Authority.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

dss 3 wp 4259.09-G.sxw

¶26

Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restriction-

¶27

removal” and “the caste certificates of relatives” based upon similar wrongly framed issues, as the same goes to the root of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires reconsideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 23^rd March 2009, is quashed and set aside.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the

¶34

3/5

¶35

dss 4 wp 4259.09-G.sxw concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 2^nd April 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

g) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶38

h) All the parties to co-operate.

¶39

i) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

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.

4/5

dss 5

wp 4259.09-G.sxw

k) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of

¶45

this Judgment/order.

¶46

4 In view of disposal of main Petition, Civil Application Nos. 1971 of 2010 and 770 of 2014 does not survive and are accordingly disposed of.

¶47

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

¶48

5/5

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi v. State 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vicky Dharamdeep Jambhulkar and Ors. Vs Sau. Devibai Narayandas Chhabada Rural Education Society and Anr.

Rupali Panchappa Kalyanshetti Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Nikunj Janak Gor Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.

Madhura Bhaskar Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Anu Hassan Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader, and 2 Ors.

Shri. Abdul Khalique Ansari Vs the State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.