Ashish S/O Prakash Solanki Thr. His Father/Natural Guardian Prakash S/O Sidoba Solanki v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola and 2 Others

Bombay HC30 Jan 2015WP/466/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench held that the Scrutiny Committee members defied a prior judgment, disrespected the law, and shown contempt by denying caste certificates despite valid parental certificates. Though guilty, the petitioners were pardoned but the officers were reprimanded to ensure future compliance.

What did the court decide?

The noticees have no need to submit a farther report and are hereby reprimanded.

Ashish S/O Prakash Solanki Thr. His Father/Natural Guardian… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

13022015wpno.326.2015 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 326 of 2015

¶4

(Siddheshwar s/o Ramkisan @ Ramkrushna More vs. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola and another.)

¶5

Writ Petition No. 466 of 2015 (Ashish s/o Prakash Solanki vs. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola and others.)

¶6

Writ Petition No. 468 of 2015

¶7

(Ku. Prajkta d/o Ramdas Gaikwad vs. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.2, Akola and another).

¶8

Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders.

¶9

Mr. N.B.Kalwaghe, Adv. for the petitioners.

¶10

Mrs. Bharti Dangre, G.P. for R-1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM: B.R.GAVAI & MRS. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR,JJ

¶12

DATE : 13.2.2015

¶13

In response to the notice issued by this Court dated

¶14

30.1.2015, Shri S.P.Tummod, Additional Collector and Chairman of the respondent Scrutiny Committee and Shri Bhimrao Khandate, Member of the said Committee, are

¶15

13022015wpno.326.2015 2

¶16

personally present in the Court. Insofar as the third noticee i.e. Mrs. Prajakta Ingle, working as Research Officer, is concerned, she has sought leave for absence on the ground that she has delivered a child on 3.1.2015 and is advised rest.

¶17

Notice came to be issued by this Court since it was noticed time and again that in spite of the Judgment of the Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 reported in 2010 (6) Mh. L.J., 401, the respondent Committee is denying the claim of the candidates belonging to various categories even though the validity certificates of the close relatives like father, brother or sister were placed on record. Not only that but the Scrutiny Committee had audacity to observe that the validity certificate of close relative is not an evidence in law and, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. We find that such approach, leave aside being totally contradictory to the law laid down by this Court, shows even lack of common sense. A layman could understand that a father and a son or two brothers or sisters belong to the same caste or tribe and not different caste or tribe. For that, at the cost of repetition, no law is required.

¶18

13022015wpno.326.2015 3

¶19

It is a different matter, if the Committee finds that an earlier validity certificate of the close relative is obtained by fraud and as such initiates action for cancellation of validity given in favour of the close relative. However, as long as the validity certificate in respect of the close relative is valid in law, the same cannot be ignored while considering the claim of another close relative.

¶20

We have no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the Committee Members is totally contemptuous and is showing total disrespect to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva (supra). Faced with such situation, noticees have also not attempted to defend their illegality. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that all the three noticess have committed contempt of this court and as such are liable to be punished for the same.

¶21

At this stage, we have called upon the noticees to submit on the issue of sentence.

¶22

Noticees Shri H.P.Tummod and Shri Bhimrao Khandate submit that they have unblemished service record

¶23

13022015wpno.326.2015 4

¶24

and they might be pardoned on this occasion.

¶25

As has been consistently held that majesty of law lies in forgetting the persons committing contempt rather than punishing them. As such, though we hold that said officers are guilty of contempt, we are not inclined to pass the order of sentence. However, they are hereby reprimanded that hereinafter they shall take due care in ensuring that the law laid down by this Court is given complete effect and the orders passed by them are inconsonance with the law laid down by this court and also in consonance with the common sense approach.

¶26

JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

13022015wpno.326.2015 5

Ashish S/O Prakash Solanki Thr. His Father/Natural Guardian Prakash S/O Sidoba Solanki v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish S/O Prakash Solanki Thr. His Father/Natural Guardian Prakash S/O Sidoba Solanki v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin (Ganesh ) S/O Ranbhauji Joshi Vs Hukamichand Badrinarayanji Heda and Others

Nirbhay S/O Arvind Chawhan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Forest and Revenue Department, Mumbai and Another

Shri. Atmaram Keoji Sontakke and Anr. Vs Shri. Vijaysingh Mansingh Rathod and Others

Siddheshwar S/O Ramkisan @ Ramkrushna More Vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.2, Akola and Another

Ku. Prajkta D/O Ramdas Gaikwad Vs Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 2, Akola and Another

The State of Mah. and 2 Ors. Vs Laxman Hari Dhakane