Remanded

Kumari Opradnya D/O Ashok Thakur, v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2014WP/9110/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition, the High Court, relying on a connected decision regarding similar 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe claims, discharged similar legal errors by the Scrutiny Committee. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration with liberty to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to adduce additional evidence; parties directed to appear on 26 May 2014.

Kumari Opradnya D/O Ashok Thakur, Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc 1

¶2

7-WP-9110-13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9110 OF 2013

¶6

Kumari Pradnya D/o. Ashok Thakur ] Age 19 years, Occ: Student, ] R/o. “Anant”, Atharva Colony, ] Sawarkar Nagar, Near Vishwas Bank ] Nashik, Dist: Nashik ] ..Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra, ] Department of Tribal Development, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 ] Through its Secretary ] (copy to be served on the Government ] Pleader, High Court of Judicature at ] Bombay) ] 2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ] Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division ] Gadkari Chowk, 2nd floor, ] Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, ] Nashik 422 002 ] Through its Member Secretary ] 3 The Deputy Collector and Special Land ] Acquisition Officer, Nashik ] Dist : Nashik ] ..Respondents

¶9

None for Petitioner. Ms M. S. Bane - “B” Panel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

1/4

skc 2

7-WP-9110-13.sxw

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

¶14

DATE : 02 MAY, 2014.

¶15

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

¶16

1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

¶17

2] None for the Petitioner. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the State – Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶18

3] After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the State and the submissions so made that the issue is covered by the earlier Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with two other connected matters decided on 26 February 2014, whereby by a common reasoned Judgment/order, this Court disposed of similarly situated Petitions with regard to the “Thakur” Scheduled Tribes claims. Therefore, for the same reasons, as the facts and issues are similar i.e. “nonconsideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of

¶19

2/4

¶20

skc 3 7-WP-9110-13.sxw

¶21

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, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as it requires re-consideration of above issues, in the following similar terms:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 31.10.2012, 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 May 2014. Thereafter, the Committee to fix the date and schedule of hearing accordingly with an endeavour

¶28

3/4

¶29

skc 4 7-WP-9110-13.sxw

¶30

to dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of Judgment/Order.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Chandka

¶37

4/4

Kumari Opradnya D/O Ashok Thakur, v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Opradnya D/O Ashok Thakur, v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Taibai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Balgi, through President, Rajkumar Baburao Hanchate and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary, School Education and Sports Division and Ors.

Shriram Education Society, Karganis, Shri Tanajirao Patil Education (B.Ed and M.Ed) College Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Surendra Desai Vs Boyapati Gopal S/O. B. Achappa and Ors.

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji University Teachers Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vinayak Arvind Aagawane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.