Allowed

Smt. Chitrakala Mahadev Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2014WP/9578/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Petition No. 9578 of 2013, this Court disposed of the petitioner's challenge to the invalidated 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe caste certificate. Relying on a connected case with similar facts regarding non-consideration of evidence, the Court quashed the scrutiny order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; matter remanded for reconsideration with liberty to file additional evidence.

Smt. Chitrakala Mahadev Londhe Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

dss 1

¶2

903wp9578.13.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9578 OF 2013

¶6

Smt. Chitrakala Mahadev Londhe Aged 43 years, Occu. Service At/post Nevare, Taluka Malshiras Dist. Solapur ….Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1 State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai32.

¶9

2 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, through its Member Secretary, Pune Region, Pune through its Member Secretary

¶10

3 Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Solapur, Dist. Solapur

¶11

4 District Health Officer Zilla Parishad Solapur, Dist. Solapur

¶12

5 Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Borgaon, Taluka Malshiras Dist. Solapur.

¶13

….Respondents.

¶14

Mr. Amitkumar D. Sale for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Addl. G.P. For Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Anand S. Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.

1/4

903wp9578.13.sxw

dss 2

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND

¶19

M.S.SONAK, JJ. DATE : 23 APRIL 2014.

¶20

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

¶21

Rule, returnable forthwith.

¶22

Learned counsel for RespondentsState waives service.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 5

¶24

waives service.

¶25

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

¶26

2 The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner, as her caste certificate of “Thakur” is invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶27

3 In earlier Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 (Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) along with two other

¶28

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. “nonconsideration of documents and evidence”, and wrong applications of law by the Scrutiny Committee on “affinity test/issue” “the area restriction

¶29

2/4

¶30

dss 3 903wp9578.13.sxw

¶31

removal” and “the caste certificates of relatives” based upon similar wrongly framed issues, as the same goes to the root of the matter, we

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

a) Impugned order of Scrutiny Committee dated 20 March 2012, is quashed and set aside.

¶35

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

¶36

c) The Scrutiny Committee to reconsider every aspect, by giving an opportunity to all the parties. d) The liberty is granted to the Petitioner/parties to file additional evidence, oral as well as, documentary material.

¶37

e) The Petitioner/parties to appear before the concerned Scrutiny Committee, on 19 May 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

dss 4

903wp9578.13.sxw

receipt of Judgment/Order.

¶42

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.

¶43

g) 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. h) Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶44

i) All the parties to cooperate. j) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

4/4

Smt. Chitrakala Mahadev Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chitrakala Mahadev Londhe v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Development 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

Ms. Shinde Vijaya Khanderao Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences through Registrar and Ors.

Rachana Ravindra Harpale Vs University of Pune, through Vice Chancellor and Ors.

Bab-E-Rehmat Educational Trust Vs Secretary, Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Jyoti Gopichand Ulkey and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School and Education Dept and Ors.

Shri. Virsing Bhamata Pawara and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School and Education Dept and Ors.

Swapnil Tirsing Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School and Education Dept and Ors.