Allowed

Raju @ Rajendra Damodhar Lawande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Oct 2015WP/10305/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe certificate application due to a nomenclature discrepancy in the existing certificate. The Court quashed the impugned order directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue the certificate within four weeks and restricted coercive action by police.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the refusal to issue the certificate. Directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue the tribe certificate within four weeks without further enquiry and prohibited coercive action by the Superin

Raju @ Rajendra Damodhar Lawande Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp10305.15.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10305 OF 2015

¶5

Raju @ Rajendra Damodhar Lawande age 45 years, occ. Service r/o Police Colony, Rahuri Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Through its Deputy Director / Member. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagar Division, Ahmednagar. 4. The Superintendent of Police Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmedngar. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the State. Mr. P.S. Patil, advocate for respondent no. 2. === CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA, JJ. DATE : 14th October, 2015

¶6

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER R. M. BORDE, J.)

¶7

Heard.

¶8

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶9

¶10

wp10305.15.odt

¶11

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶12

Petitioner is assailing order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer refusing to issue caste certificate in favour of petitioner certifying that he belongs to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.

¶13

It is not a matter of dispute that petitioner was possessed of certificate issued by competent authority certifying that he belongs Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, which was referred for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, however, by order dated 10.03.2015, directed cancellation of caste certificate merely on the ground that the tribe mentioned in the certificate is Mahadev Koli which is not in consonance with the constitutional list of tribes which records the entry in respect of tribe as Koli Mahadev. An opportunity was granted to the petitioner to obtain proper certificate from the competent authority and submit the same for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner accordingly approached the Sub-Divisional Officer and tendered application for issuance of tribe certificate. Petitioner also produced attested copy of the certificate which was earlier produced by him for verification to the Scrutiny Committee. Infact, it was incumbent upon the sub-Divisional Officer to issue tribe certificate as requested by petitioner, in view of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition no. 4536/2014 and other companion petitions. Order passed by the SubDivisional Officer refusing to issue tribe certificate as requested by

¶14

¶15

wp10305.15.odt

¶16

petitioner is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶17

The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to issue tribe certificate as requested by the petitioner in prescribed proforma as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today without embarking upon any further enquiry in the matter. Respondent no. 4 is directed not to take any coercive action against petitioner on the ground of his failure to submit validation certificate. It would be open for the petitioner to approach the Scrutiny Committee with the certificate that would be issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, requesting for its verification. The Scrutiny Committee shall, on receipt of proposal from petitioner, which he is expected to tender within a period of eight weeks from today, proceed to verify the same in observance of the procedure prescribed in the relevant regulations and after extending an opportunity of hearing to petitioner and, shall render decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of the proposal from the petitioner. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

( P.R.BORA ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

dyb

Raju @ Rajendra Damodhar Lawande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajendra Damodhar Lawande v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Udgir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sardar Surendrasingh Gulabsingh Loniwale Vs the Chairman, the Takht Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Board, Nanded and Others

Suryabhan Prabhuji Khatode Vs the Sangamner Marchants Cooperative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar and Others

Swapnil Subhash Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Ranubai Kondiba Kokate Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilkantrao Shankarrao Kyadampure Vs Godavari Shankarrao Chende and Others