Remanded

Nababshah Shaukatshah v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC12 Oct 2015WP/3759/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Nababshah Shaukatshah against the invalidation of his caste certificate. The High Court observed that the petitioner failed to produce certificates issued to his daughter and nephew before the Scrutiny Committee. The court quashed the impugned order, remanded the matter for a fresh decision after a hearing, and directed no adverse action during pendency.

What did the court decide?

Order quashed and remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh hearing and decision within one year; no adverse action against petitioner during pendency.

Nababshah Shaukatshah Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP No. 3759/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3759 OF 2014

¶5

Nababshah Shaukatshah

¶6

Age: 44 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. At post Kukana,
Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶10

2. Scheduled Caste Scrutiny Committee Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶11

3. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Division Nashik Nashik.

¶12

4. The Principal, Kukana Secondary and Higher Secondary School, Kukana, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

...

¶15

Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate H/f. Mr.P.S.Pawar, Advocate
for Petitioner;

¶16

Mrs. A.G.Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶17

CORAM: R.M.BORDE &
P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶18

DATE :12th October,2015.

¶19

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

¶20

1)Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

¶21

2 WP No. 3759/2014

¶22

forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for
the parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal at admission stage.

¶23

2)The petitioner is objecting the order of
invalidation of caste certificate, dated 10th January
2014, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶24

3)The petitioner claims to belong to
“Chapparband”, Vimukta Jati. A certificate,
certifying that the petitioner belongs to
“Chapparband” has been issued by the competent
authority, which was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for its verification. On consideration of
the evidence placed on record by the petitioner, the
Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the
petitioner.

¶25

4)Before the Committee, in support of the
caste claim, the petitioner has placed reliance on
the Caste Validation Certificate issued in favour of
his daughter by the scrutiny Committee on 16.09.2013;
so also the Caste Certificate issued in favour of
nephew on 30.08.2013. The petitioner contends that

¶26

3 WP No. 3759/2014

¶27

since the blood-relations have been issued Caste
Certificates, including the daughter, it was not open
for the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate the caste
claim of the petitioner.

¶28

5)On perusal of the impugned order passed by
the Scrutiny Committee as well as the original
record, it does not transpire that the petitioner had
produced before the Scrutiny Committee the aforesaid
two certificates. As such, there was no occasion for
the Scrutiny Committee to consider the impact of
issuance of the Caste Validation Certificate in
favour of blood-relations of the petitioner.

¶29

6)In order to meet the ends of justice, we
deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the
impugned order passed by the Committee and relegate
the petitioner back to the Scrutiny Committee with
directions to the Committee to decide the caste claim
of the petitioner afresh, after extending an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It would

¶30

be open for the petitioner to produce the relevant

¶31

record in support of his caste claim, including the
Caste Validation Certificates issued in favour of his

¶32

4 WP No. 3759/2014

¶33

near relations, referred to above. The Committee

¶34

shall, after taking into consideration the
evidence/material placed on record by the petitioner,
proceed to decide the caste claim afresh in
accordance with the provisions of law, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a
period of one year from today.

¶35

7)The petitioner shall appear before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on 25th October, 2015 and as such,
no separate notice, requiring his presence before the
Committee is necessary.

¶36

8)During pendency and final disposal of the
caste claim of the petitioner before the Committee,
no adverse action shall be taken against the
petitioner by the employer.

¶37

9)Rule is accordingly made absolute in above

¶38

terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

sd/sd/(P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/

Nababshah Shaukatshah v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nababshah Shaukatshah 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

Jalinder Laxman Gore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sahebrao Babaji Mule Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Seema Pankaj Nikam @ Seema Asaram Thorat Vs Pankaj Pralhadrao Nikam

Vishal Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dhule Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asha Ramlu Kamalawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Snehal Ravindra Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others