Disposed

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra, through Mr. Dilip Vitthalrao Khamkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2015PIL/166/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought a direction to the State to declare four talukas in Pune District eligible for Tribal Sub Plan benefits and to decide on a 2014 representation. The court ordered the Government to consider the representation and take a final decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government of Maharashtra to consider and decide on the petitioner's representation dated 14 February 2014 within three months.

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

PIL 166 - 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PIL NO. 166 OF 2014

¶4

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Balwant V. Salunkhe i/b Mr. C.K. Bhagoji for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Bhise, A.P.P. For the respondent – State.

¶10

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & G.S. KULKARNI, J.

¶11

DATE : 19 MARCH 2015

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

One of the prayers in this PIL is for a direction to the State of Maharashtra in the Tribal Development Department to declare that villages in four talukas, i.e. Haveli Taluka, Purandar Taluka, Velhe Taluka and Bhor Taluka in Pune District have more than 40% Scheduled Tribe population as per Census, 2001 and, therefore, they come under the Tribal Sub Plan and, therefore, are entitled to the benefits of the policy framed by the Government of India by Office Memorandum dated 18 August 2009 read with corrigendum dated 26 October 2009 issued by the Planning Commission of Government of India as well as Notification dated 21 May 2010 issued by the Government of Maharashtra.

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

ABS Corrected pursuant to the order dated 2 September 2015 on the praecipe for speaking to minutes

¶16

PIL 166 - 2014

¶17

It is also contended that the representation dated 14 February 2014 made by the petitioner society on the above subject has not been decided by the Government of Maharashtra in the Tribal Development Department.

¶18

In view of the above, we are of the view that the interests of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Government of Maharashtra in the Tribal Development Department to consider and take a decision on the petitioner society's representation dated 14 February 2014 on the above subject. The two representatives of the petitioner society may be given a personal hearing in case the Government is not inclined to accept the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly the final decision shall be taken within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above

¶20

terms.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶23

2 of 2

¶24

ABS Corrected pursuant to the order dated 2 September 2015 on the praecipe for speaking to minutes

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra, through Mr. Dilip Vitthalrao Khamkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adivasi Kalyan Va Sanvardhan Society Maharashtra, through Mr. Dilip Vitthalrao Khamkar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paryavaran Mitra Bahuudeshiya Sanstha,Chandrapur ,Office at Durgapur, Ward NO.1,TQ. and Distt. Vs Union of India Thr. Secy. Ministry of Environment and Forest Paryavaran Bhavan,Cgo Complex,Lodhi Rd

Shri. Anil Pandurang Magdum Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Anil Pandurang Magdum Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Vasudev Ananta Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari Vs the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri. Gopal Krishna Pujari Vs the Union of India, through Miistry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and Ors.

Shri Bapu Supadu Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra

Girijadevi Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Ajay Anant Kampali Vs Godrej Infotech Limited and 2 Ors.

Sadashiv Moholkar Shikshan Sanstha and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports and Ors.

Prerna Shaikshanik Va Samajik Sanstha through Its President and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Mohanty S/O Late Badibandhu Mohanty Vs L and T Finance Limited and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors. Vs Trimurti Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Shriram Madhyamik Vidyalay, Ramnagar

The Chairman, Shri Shankarrao Shinde Shikshan Mandal, Hadalge and Anr. Vs Shri. Sakharam Mahadeo Mohangekar and Ors.