Partly allowed

Shri. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Baidu v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2015WP/7250/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer to reconsider the petitioner's case for a caste certificate, quashing impugned orders and emphasising that a prima facie view based on available records suffices for granting a certificate in absence of doubt. The court gave the petitioner an opportunity to file additional documents. Relied on: Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 15 May 2014 and 20 November 2013 quashed; Respondent No.3 directed to reconsider case and pass order within six weeks.

Shri. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Baidu Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

1/3

¶3

14 wp 7250.14 as .doc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7250 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Bhalchandra Ramchandra Baidu ….. Petitioner V/s

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Kamalakar L. Koli for Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Sushma S.Bhende, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &

¶11

A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 2 SEPTEMBER 2015

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard forthwith finally.

¶14

2 We are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition by directing the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrivardhan Division, District Raigad to reconsider the case of Petitioner of granting caste certificate based upon the material placed on record and also specifically in view of the Tahasildar's Report dated 29 November 2013 which was addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrivardhan Division after the order dated 20 November 2013 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrivardhan Division. As in our view it is desirable to give an opportunity to the Petitioner as there is no sufficient and conclusive decision given based upon the documents

1/3

2/3

14 wp 7250.14 as .doc

¶19

which are placed by the Petitioner in his support specifically referring to Item Nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 as mentioned in the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrivardhan Division.

¶20

3 The submissions of learned AGP based upon the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and specifically Rules 4, 5, 9 and 12 are also not acceptable. As the requirement of issuing of basic certificate in no way can be said to be and referred of detail and conclusive enquiry. Only prima facie view is required based upon the material placed on record and in case of doubt and/or no material further enquiry is called for. In the present case, as noted there are 6/7 documents, which prima facie have supported the case of the Petitioner. The letter of Tahasildar dated 29 November 2013 is additional factor which required to be reconsidered by the Competent Authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice, following order:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1 The impugned order dated 15 May 2014 and order dated 20 November 2013 are quashed and set aside;

¶23

2 Respondent No.3 Competent Authority to reconsider the case of the Petitioner by giving an opportunity and pass order in accordance with law preferably within six weeks;

2/3

3/3

14 wp 7250.14 as .doc

¶28

katkam

¶29

3 The Petitioner is at liberty to file Additional documents in support of

¶30

his case;

¶31

4 Rule made absolute. No costs.

¶32

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶33

3/3

Shri. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Baidu v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bhalchandra Ramchandra Baidu v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Navnath Shivram Koli Vs the General Manager, Central Bank of India and Ors.

The Sindhudurg Diocesan Educational Trust, Kankavali through Its President/Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

The Sindhudurg Diocesan Educational Trust, Kankavali through Its President/Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Ms. Shaikh Misbah Shakeel Ahmed Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Ors.

Ms. Shaikh Misbah Shakeel Ahmed Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Ors.

Anil Baburao Suryawanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Ors.