Quashed

Amol Shivaji Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2014WP/4420/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Appellate Side, relying on a common order in a similar Writ Petition regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe claims, quashed the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee that invalidated the petitioner's caste claim. The matter was remanded to the Committee with direction to reconsider all aspects, provide an opportunity to parties, and admit additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 16/01/2009 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration. Liberty is granted to apply for additiona

Amol Shivaji Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dgm 1

¶2

14-4420-09-Thakur group.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4420 OF 2009

¶5

Amol Shivaji Thakur, aged 27 years, residing at Post Rajaramnagar, Tal. Valva, Dist. Sangli ….Petitioner Vs.

¶6

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

¶7

2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik, through its Deputy Director and Member-Secretary having its Office at Adivashi Bhavan, Old Agra Road Nashik, District Nashik

¶8

3 Assistant Collector, Sangamner, Dn.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmadnagar.

¶9

4 The Divisional Controller, State Transport, Sangli, Dist. Sangli ….Respondents.

¶10

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen Koli-Mandlik for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for State.

¶11

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶12

DATE : March 24, 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Anoop V. Mohta, J.):

¶13

Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for

¶14

1/4

¶15

dgm 2

¶16

14-4420-09-Thakur group.sxw

¶17

Respondents waive service.

¶18

2 Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶19

3 The Petitioner is claiming to be belonging to Thakur-

¶20

Scheduled Tribe caste, but the Respondent/Scrutiny Committee by

¶21

the impugned order invalidated his caste claim. Therefore, the present Petition.

¶22

4 In earlier Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin 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 are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires reconsideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated

¶25

2/4

¶26

dgm 3

¶27

14-4420-09-Thakur group.sxw

¶28

16/01/2009, is quashed and set aside.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 21 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.

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

dgm 4

¶36

14-4420-09-Thakur group.sxw

¶37

the order.

¶38

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

¶39

j) The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court

¶40

in Writ Petition/ Civil Application to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

4/4

Amol Shivaji Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Shivaji Thakur v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Shantaram More Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Dept and Ors.

Shri. Tatya Vishnu Ranashur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Dept and Ors.

Vilas Babli Atak Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nainesh Dolas Vs the Chairman of Aicte, All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Nainesh Dolas Vs the Chairman of Aicte, All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Abdul Mujib Abdul Alim Gaffur Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Education Dept and Ors.