Remanded

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2014WP/793/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the invalidation of his Scheduled Tribe certificate. Relying on a similar decision regarding Thakur claims, the court quashed the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee, remanded the matter for reconsideration with an opportunity to present evidence, and granted liberty to file additional material.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 7 December 2013 quashed; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to adduce evidence.

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

ssm 1

¶2

902-wp793.14.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 793 OF 2014

¶6

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire, Aged 24 years, Residing at Flat No.2, Vasantanand Apartment, Behind Old Petrol Pump, Dindori Road, Dist. Nashik-422 004. ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

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

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik, through its Member-Secretary, having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Old Agra Road, Nashik. Dist. Nashik.

¶10

3 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation, Nashik. ….Respondents.

¶11

Mr. C.K. Bhangoji i/by Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Ms. Helen KoliMandlik for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

1/4

ssm 2

902-wp793.14.sxw

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

¶17

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

¶18

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service.

¶20

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶21

2 The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner-student, as

¶22

his caste certificate is invalidated by the Competent Authority.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

2/4

¶26

ssm 3 902-wp793.14.sxw

¶27

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 re-

¶28

consideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 7 December 2013, is quashed and set aside. b) The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, for reconsideration. c) The Scrutiny Committee to re-consider every aspect, by giving an opportunity to all the parties. 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.

¶31

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

3/4

902-wp793.14.sxw

ssm 4

receipt of Judgment/Order.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Chandrakant Ahire 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

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.

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

Sanjay Bajirao More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.