Remanded

Sanjay Bajirao More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2014WP/5031/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s order rejecting the petitioner’s Thakur Scheduled Tribe claim. The matter was remanded for reconsideration with liberty to add evidence, directing the Committee to give notice and fix a hearing date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 19 June 2006 was quashed. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by giving parties an opportunity to adduce additional evidence.

Sanjay Bajirao More Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

16-wp5031.06.sxw

¶2

ssm 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5031 OF 2006

¶6

Sanjay Bajirao More, Aged 35 years, Gharkul Society, Plot No. 136/D-I, MHADA Colony, Pokhran Road-2, Thane (W), District Thane. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik, through its Deputy Director (R) and Member Secretary, having its office at Adivashi Bhavan, Old Agra Road, Nashik, District Nashik.

¶10

3 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., through its Establishment Officer, Bhandup Nagari Primandal, 1st Floor, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai-400 078. ….Respondents.

¶11

1/4

¶12

ssm 2 16-wp5031.06.sxw

¶13

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen Koli-Mandlik for the Petitioner. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for Respondent No.3.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The Petitioner claiming the privilege/benefits being so called Thakur Tribe. The Supreme Court in Amruta Vijay More Vs. State of Maharashtra Civil Appeal No. 7230 of 2011 @ SLP © No(s). 29364 of 2010, (The Appellant is the real niece of the present Petitioner), already granted the caste certificate in her favour. However, by impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee on 19 June 2006 rejected the claim of validating the caste certificate of the Petitioner.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

2/4

¶20

ssm 3 16-wp5031.06.sxw

¶21

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:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 19 June 2006, is quashed and set aside.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 26 March 2014.

¶28

3/4

¶29

ssm 4 16-wp5031.06.sxw 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

4/4

Sanjay Bajirao More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bajirao More 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

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.

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