The High Court of Bombay dismissed a review petition challenging an order that rejected a claim for Tribal status by the petitioner on the basis that the caste of her father was recorded as Maratha.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RPW43
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.43 OF 2015 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8557 OF 2014
Mrs.Jayashree Bhaskar Gosavi ...Petitioner
vs.
Mr.Vishwanath Krishnath Panke & Ors. ...Respondents
Ms Ujwala Karpe a/w Ms Minal Deshmukh i/b
Mr.V.S.Deokar for the petitioner
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for State
Ms Pallavi Jadhav i/b J.G.Reddy for the respondent
No.1
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.S.GADKARI, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 23, 2015
P.C.:
1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The caste claim of the petitioner was negatived by
the Caste Scrutiny Committee. A petition filed by
the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for challenging the order of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee was rejected by this Court by
order dated 20th December 2014. The Review is sought
of this order.
2The first submission in support of the Review
Petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that in this review petition, the petitioner is
relying upon the affidavit of Shri Mohan and Ajay
which is at ExhibitH. However, we find that no
reasons have been set out in the review petition as
2 RPW43
to why the said affidavit was not filed in the main
Writ Petition. Nothing is pointed out to show what
prevented the petitioner from filing the said
affidavit in the Writ Petition. Therefore, there is
no merit in the said ground.
3The second contention of the review petitioner
is that the show cause notice was not issued to the
petitioner in terms of the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional
Commissioner, Tribal Development and others1.
4In the present case, adjudication was made in
terms of the enactment of the year 2000 and the
Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner was fully
heard. The petitioner was permitted to adduce
evidence. Therefore, there is no merit even in the
second ground.
5In the present case, the petitioner claimed
that she belongs to Bangosavi, Nomadic Tribe. There
is a finding of fact recorded by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee that the caste of the father of the
petitioner was recorded as Maratha.
6There is no error apparent on the face of the
record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for
review. Review Petition is rejected.
1 1994 (6) SCC 241
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient grounds exist to review an order dismissing a writ petition challenging a caste scrutiny order.
Whether a review can be allowed on the basis of an affidavit not filed in the original petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and othersReferred¶3
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others
1994 (6) SCC 241Referred¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayashree Bhaskar Gosavi
Vishwanath Krishnath Panke
A.S. Oka
A.S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court