Allowed

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

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014WP/4443/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the order invalidating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe caste certificate. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Scrutiny Committee, citing a similar precedent, and directed the Committee to provide an opportunity for both parties to present evidence.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 2nd March 2013 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration with an opportunity to both parties.

Sidram Nilappa Koli Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss

¶2

wp 4443.13(907)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4443 OF 2013

¶5

Sidram Nilappa Koli ] Age 54 yrs. R/o. Vanrai Vihar ] CHS, R.No.7, 1^st Floor, MIDC ] Road, Katrap, Kulgaon ] Badlapur (E), Tal. Ambernath ] Dist Thane ] .. Petitioner vs. 1] State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secertary, Tribal ] Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 ] 2] Scheduled Tribe Caste ] Certificate Scrutiny Committee] Pune Division, Pune through ] its Dy. Director and member ] Secretary having its office at ] 28, Queen's Garden, ] Dist. Pune. ] 3] Municipal Corporation of ] Greater Bombay through its ] Chief Accountant (WSSD), ] head office, Mahapalika Marg ] Fort, Mumbai-1. ] .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.R.K. Mendadkar a/w. Mr. C.K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶7

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

¶8

DATE: March 06, 2014

1/5

dss

wp 4443.13(907)

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER ANOOP V. MOHTA,J] :-

¶13

1] Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Respondents-state waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶15

2] The Petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 2^nd March 2013, whereby his caste certificate is invalidated, merely on the ground of “ unable to prove his affinity towards the Area, where the people of the tribe claimed by him were residing before the Enactment of Removal of Area Restrictions, 1976 and unable to prove his affinity with Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe ” .

¶16

3] Both these issues, in our view, go to the root of the matter and which are also relevant for assessment and / or evaluation of documents, so filed by the Petitioner.

¶17

4] In view of decision in 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

2/5

dss

wp 4443.13(907)

i.e. “non-consideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of law by the Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restriction-removal” 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.

¶22

5] Therefore, by keeping all points open, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order dated 2^nd March 2013 and direct the Respondent-Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the same, in accordance with law, by giving an opportunity to both the parties in every aspects.

¶23

6] Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶24

(a) The impugned order dated 2^nd March 2013 is quashed and set aside;

¶25

(b) The matter is remanded back the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration;

3/5

dss

wp 4443.13(907)

the case in accordance with law 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 26^th March 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour

¶33

to dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this Order;

¶34

(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

¶35

four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order;

¶36

(g) Rule made absolute in the above terms;

¶37

(h) All the parties to co-operate;

¶38

(i) There shall be no order as to costs;

¶39

(j) The interim protection granted by this Court to

4/5

dss

wp 4443.13(907)

continue until the decision and four weeks

¶44

thereafter. No question of claiming any equities;

¶45

(k) The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of

¶46

this order.

¶47

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

¶48

Sherla

¶49

5/5

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidram Nilappa Koli v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept 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

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

Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Idea Cellulare Limited Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

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

Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Tagare and Ors. Vs Mr. Rajiv Madhav Madane and Anr.

Gyanaodaya Shikshan Prasarak Samittee and Anr. Vs the Deputy Director of Education and Ors.