Allowed

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

Bombay HC21 Mar 2014WP/748/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claiming Scheduled Tribe status sought reconsideration of an impugned order due to a recent Supreme Court precedent. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration.

Yogesh Shantaram More Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

WP-748-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2012

¶5

Yogesh Shantaram More .. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. A. T. Gade for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms S. S. Bhende – AGP for State - Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. G. S. Hegde for Respondent No. 3.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE: March 21, 2014

¶10

P.C . :-

¶11

1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶12

2] The Petitioner who claims to belong to a Scheduled Tribe (Thakur, Thakar) filed this Petition against the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶13

3] After considering the averments made and also for the reason that this Court in the case of Madhuri Nitin Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 & others] decided on 26.02.2014 already remanded back the matter for

1/3

skc

WP-748-12

reconsideration basically of related issue of 'Thakar' Scheduled Tribe.

¶18

4] In view of this and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this petition. The Petition is accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 29.11.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for consideration, on all points.

¶19

5] Resultantly, the following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

a. Order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.11.2011 is quashed and set aside.

¶22

b. Matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration. The Scrutiny Committee to reconsider every aspect, by giving opportunity to all concerned.

¶23

c. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply before the Scrutiny Committee for filing additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary material.

¶24

d. The Petitioner/ parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee on 11^th April 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and programme

2/3

skc

WP-748-12

accordingly with an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible and in any case within four months from the date of receipt of judgment / order.

¶29

e. In case, Scrutiny Committee passes an adverse order against the Petitioner, the same should not be given effect to and/or acted upon for four weeks thereafter from the date of communication of the order.

¶30

f. All the parties to co-operate.

¶31

g. The interim protection, if any, granted by this Court to continue until the decision and four weeks thereafter. No question of claiming any equities.

¶32

h. Rule is disposed of.

¶33

i. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

j. The parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this judgment / order.

¶35

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

¶36

Chandka

¶37

3/3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Shantaram More v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Scheduled Tribe 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director, Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamanadal Ltd. Vs Smt. Vaishali Admakar Bagul and Ors.

Swapnil Dashrath Suryawanshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

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.