Partly allowed

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Dec 2014WP/5872/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of OBC status, the Court held that an order by a three-member Caste Scrutiny Committee lacking the Chairman's signature is invalid. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 4th August 2007 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh adjudication.

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

wp5872

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.5872 OF 2007

¶5

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and ors....Respondents

¶6

Mr.Rahul Walvekar for the petitioner
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr.M.S.Lagu for respondent No.4

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
 DATE : DECEMBER 16,2014

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶9

1Rule has been already issued in this petition
on 28th January 2008. On 4th December 2014 this
petition was ordered to be fixed high upon daily
board for final hearing.

¶10

2The learned counsel for the respondent No.4
seeks time by stating that he could not contact the
respondent No.4.

¶11

3Rule has been already issued in the year 2008.
It appears that till today, no reply has been filed
by the respondent No.4. Hence, we decline to grant
time.

¶12

4The challenge in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is to the order

¶13

2 wp5872

¶14

dated 4th August 2007 passed by the DivisionalCaste
Verification Committee, Pune Division, Pune. By the
said order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has
purported to negative the caste claim of the
petitioner that he belongs to Kunbi caste which is
recognised as Other Backward Caste in the State.

¶15

5Apart from the merits, the first submission of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
Chairman of the Caste Scrutiny Committee who was the
Additional Commissioner Revenue, Pune Division, Pune
has not signed the impugned order. He has produced
for perusal of the Court a certified copy of the
impugned order issued by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee which is a photo copy of the original. We
find from the said certified copy that the Chairman
of the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not signed the
the order which is signed by the other two members.
This challenge has been specifically raised in the
petition in ground (d) of paragraph 9 of the
petition. There is no reply filed by the State
Government dealing with this aspect. We must note
that going by the record and going by the certified
copy, the case made out by the petitioner that the
Chairman of the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not
sign the impugned order will have to be accepted.

¶16

6As stated earlier, apart from the fact that the
certified copy of the impugned order supports the
case made out by the petitioner, there is no return
filed by any of the respondents.

¶17

3 wp5872

¶18

7The Caste Scrutiny Committee consists of three
members. The order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee is required to be signed by all the three
members. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner on the Judgment and Order of this
Court dated 14th February 2008 in Writ Petition
No.5880 of 2007 (Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others). The said order
takes a view that the order of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee which is not signed by one of the three
members is not a valid order. Only on this ground,
the impugned order will have to be quashed and set
aside and a fresh enquiry will have to be ordered on
the caste claim of the petitioner.

¶19

8Accordingly, petition is disposed of by passing
the following order:

¶20

(I)Impugned order dated 4th August 2007 is
quashed and set aside and the matter of
verification of the caste claim of the
petitioner is remitted to the concerned Caste
Scrutiny Committee at Kolhapur which is
empowered to decide the caste claim of the
persons belonging to Other Backward Castes;

¶21

(II)We direct the petitioner to produce an
authenticated copy of this order before the
concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee at Kolhapur
having jurisdiction to decide his caste claim.
The concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee shall
issue notice to the respondent No.4 and other
concerned parties;

¶22

wp5872

¶23

¶24

(III) The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make a fresh adjudication on the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Appropriate order shall be passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31^st May 2015;

¶25

(IV) All contentions on merits of the caste claim of the petitioner are kept open to be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee;

¶26

(V) Rule is partly made absolute on above terms;

¶27

(VI) Concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

(A.S.GADKARI,J.)

¶29

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Ganpati Dhonukshe 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

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh Shankarrao Powar, Throough Poa, Shri. R. v. Powar Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Krishna Pawar Vs Grampanchayat Uchgaon through Its Sarpanch and Ors.

Smt. Manisha Sahebrao Gaikwad Vs Dr. W. B. Tayade

Avh Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Environment and Anr.

Smt. Manisha Sahebrao Gaikwad Vs Dr. W. B. Tayade