Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

¶1

pil35-165

¶2

1

¶3

ssp

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.35 OF 2014

¶5

Suresh Vitthal Pawar ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents

¶6

ALONG WITH

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.165 OF 2014
Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and others...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Anand S. Patil for the Petitioner in PIL 35/2014
Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale i/b Mr.Nagesh Chavan for the
petitioner in PIL 165/2014

¶9

Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, AND A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH SUBMISSIONS ARE HEARD:DECEMBER 9, 2014
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED:FEBRUARY 11,2015

¶11

JUDGMENT: (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

¶12

1As the question arising in these two petitions
is more or less identical, the same are taken up
together for final disposal.

¶13

2The State Government has issued a Government
Resolution (for short `GR') on 17th November 1994 in
relation to earthquake affected persons. The said
GR notes that as per the recommendations of Mandal
Commission, the issue of providing reservation for
the earthquake affected persons in the Government

¶14

pil35-165

¶15

2

¶16

employment was considered. The said GR records that
there is a reservation provided for project affected
persons in the employment. It was resolved that in
the 5% quota reserved for project affected persons,
a reservation should be provided even for earthquake
affected persons. There is a further GR dated 9th
August 1995. The said GR refers to the earlier GR
dated 17th November 1994. It provides that the
reservation for earthquake affected persons will be
monitored by the District Collectors who shall
examine the matters and take appropriate decision.
The clause (a) of the said GR defines the
earthquakeaffectedpersons.FreeEnglish
translation of the clause (a) reads thus:

¶17

“(a) Definition of earthquake affected persons -----

¶18

In case of earthquake affected persons, one person
each from earthquake affected families will be
entitled to the benefit of reservation in the matter
of employment. For determining whether a family is
an earthquake affected family, following criteria
shall be considered:

¶19

(a) Families in 52 villages in Latur and
Osmanabad Districts which were completely
destroyed in earthquake;

¶20

(b) Those whose houses have been completely
destroyed;

¶21

(c)those whose places of business or business
were completely destroyed thereby causing the
loss of the source of livelihood.”

¶22

pil35-165

¶23

3

¶24

3The GR dated 9th August 1995 also defines
“family” of earthquake affected persons. It
provides that as per clause(c) of section 6 of the
Maharashtra Rehabilitation of Project Affected
Persons Act,1986, the family will include husband,
wife, son and unmarried daughter as well as brother,
sister, grandson, daughter-in-law residing with the
family and who are dependent upon the head of the
family.

¶25

4The issue involved in these PILs is whether the
earthquake affected families of Koyana earthquake
are entitled to the benefits of reservation provided
under the said G.Rs. It is pointed out that there
were earthquakes in the region of Koyana Dam in the
year 1967 and 1993 in which large number of families
in Patan Taluka, District Satara were severely
affected. In PIL 35/2014 ,it is pointed out that by
a communication dated 13th December 2010, issued on
behalf of the District Collector, Satara a stand has
been taken that considering the GR dated 9th August
1995, a certificate of earthquake affected persons
can be issued only to the persons residing in 52
affected villages in Latur and Osmanabad Districts.
It is stated that as per the letter dated 23rd
September 1997 issued by the State Government to the
Divisional Commissioner, Pune, the earthquake
affected persons of Koyana Dam will not be entitled
to the benefit of reservation. The relief sought in
PIL 35 of 2014 is for a declaration that even the
earthquake affected persons of Koyana Dam will be

¶26

pil35-165

¶27

4

¶28

entitled to the benefit of reservation. Similar
relief is prayed for in PIL 165 of 2014.

¶29

5A common reply has been filed by Shri Mandar
Madhukar Pohore, the Deputy Secretary of the
Disaster Management Unit, Revenue and Forest
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In the said
affidavit, a stand has been taken that the aforesaid
benefit is available exclusively to the persons
residing in 52 villages in Latur and Osmanabad
Districts and it is not applicable to earthquake
affected people in any other districts.

¶30

6The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the basic GR is of 17th November
1994 which is applicable to all districts in the
State. Their contention is that in the GR dated 9th
August 1995, it is provided that the persons falling
in the three categories set out in clause (a) will
be covered by the concept of earthquake affected
families. Their contention is that the families in
52 villages in the Latur and Osmanabad Districts
which were completely destroyed in the earthquake
fall in the first of the three categories provided
in GR dated 9th August 1995. The submission of the
petitioners is that the object of issuing G.Rs is to
give benefit of reservation to one member each of
the families affected by earthquakes. The submission
of the learned AGP is that the GR dated 9th August
1995 makes it clear that the same applies only to
the families residing in 52 villages earthquake
affected in Latur and Osmanabad Districts and that

¶31

pil35-165

¶32

5

¶33

the same will have no application to those who are
affected by any earthquakes in other districts in
the State.

¶34

7We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. The GR dated 17th November 1994 records
the decision of the Government to include earthquake
affected persons in the category of project affected
persons. It is provided therein that the earthquake
affected persons will be entitled to reservation in
the 5% quota reserved for project affected persons
in the Government employment. The said GR does not
confine its applicability to the persons affected by
earthquakes in any particular district or districts.

¶35

8We have already made a reference to the GR
dated 9th August 1995. We have reproduced free
English translation of the definition of the project
affected persons in the said GR dated 9th August
1995. The said GR dated 9th August 1995 makes a
reference to the earlier GR dated 17th November 1994.
It is a GR issued which clarifies the earlier GR
dated 17th November 1994 by providing for definition
of the Earthquake affected persons and the
definition of Family. The definition of Earthquake
affected persons provides that the families falling
in three categories enumerated therein will be the
families of Earthquake affected persons. The first
category is of the families in 52 villages in Latur
and Osmanabad Districts which were completely

¶36

pil35-165

¶37

6

¶38

destroyed due to earthquake. The second category is
of those whose houses have been completely destroyed
due to earthquakes and the third category is of
those whose places of business or business have been
completely destroyed due to earthquake resulting
into the loss of the source of livelihood. The
first category relates to 52 villages in Latur and
Osmanabad District. In the other two categories,
there is no reference to any particular district or
any particular place. If the contention of the
respondents that the reservation is applicable only
to the earthquake affected families in 52 villages
of Latur and Osmanabad Districts which were
completely destroyed is accepted, there was no
reason to provide a separate category of the persons
whose houses have been destroyed. There was no
reason to include a separate category of those whose
places of business have been destroyed. Moreover,
the second and third categories do not refer to any
particular district or any particular place. The
recitals of the GR dated 9th August 1995 show that
the same has been issued in continuation of the
earlier GR dated 17th November 1994. The GR dated
17th November 1994 does not restrict the benefit of
reservation in the Government employment to the
earthquake affected persons of a particular district
or the districts. It is not provided in the GR dated
9th August 1995 that earlier GR dated 17th November
1994 stands modified.

¶39

9On the conjoint reading of the GR dated 17th
November 1994 and 9th August 1995, we are of the

¶40

pil35-165

¶41

7

¶42

considered view that the reservation in the
employment will be available to the families of
earthquake affected persons which are covered by one
of the three categories in clause (a) of the GR
dated 9thAugust 1995. Thus, the benefit of
reservation will be available to all those who are
covered by the GR dated 9th August 1995 provided they
satisfy the tests laid down by the said GR. Thus,
the benefits will be available to the families whose
houses were destroyed due to earthquake. The
benefit will be available to those whose places of
business or business were destroyed due to
earthquake. Families satisfying one of these two
tests in all districts will be entitled to the
benefit of reservation. The reservation in the said
two categories is not restricted to Latur and
Osmanabad districts. We make it clear that we are
not deciding the issue whether the benefit will be
available to those who are affected by the
earthquakes which have taken place after 9th August
1995. The said issue is kept open.

¶43

10Therefore, the petitions must succeed to the
above extent. Hence, we pass the following order;

¶44

(a) We hold and declare that the benefits
provided under the GR dated 17th November 1994
and 9th August 1995 are also available to
earthquake affected families residing near
Koyana Dam and particularly in Taluka Patan,
District Satara provided on the date of the
said GR, they satisfy the second or third

¶45

8 pil35-165

¶46

tests laid down in clause (a) in the GR dated
9th August 1995 which is quoted in paragraph
above;

¶47

(b) We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on the issue whether the persons
affected by the earthquakes which have taken
place after 9th August 1995 are covered by the
said GR;

¶48

(c)We direct the State Government to issue
appropriate clarification in terms of this
Judgment and Order to all the District
Collectors in the State within a period of
three months from today;

¶49

(d) Rule is made absolute on above terms with
no order as to costs.

¶50

.After pronouncement of the Judgment, the
learned AGP prays for grant of stay. The learned
counsel for the petitioner objects to the said
prayer. We accordingly direct that the operation of
the Judgment will remain stayed for a period of six
weeks from today.

Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Association for Aiding Justice through Authorized Signatory Mr. Ram Keswani Vs Union of India through Secretary of Defence Minister and Ors.

Shri. Satish Bhaurao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rural Development and Irrigation and Ors.

Dhiraj Shantling Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudhakar Vasudeo Velankar Vs Minister of State-Independent Charge and Infor.andORS.

Save Open Spaces and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 10 Ors.

Vijay Jagannath Barve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Rajesh Maruti Kamble Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Bhaskar Ganesh Datar Vs the Collector-Collector Officer,Ratnagiri and Ors.

Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Ashwin Chunilal Dalal Vs the Tahsildar, Thane and Ors.

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, through President Prof. Maruti N, Navle Vs Dy. Conservator of Forest, Pune and Ors.

Mrs. Nayana S. Gobbur Vs Mr. Sudhir S. Gobbur

Shri. Suresh Vitthal Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Forest and Rehabilitation Dept and Anr.

Mrs. Jayashree Bhaskar Gosavi Vs Mr. Vishwanath Krishnath Panke and Ors.