Remanded

Sou. Sheetal Subhash Ramugade v. Vrushali Durvas Kadam

Bombay HC4 Aug 2016CAW/1395/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders dismissing a petition regarding a SC/ST certificate due to erroneous information received by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which was later corrected by the Tahsildar. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 3rd and 4th May 2016 were quashed and the matter remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision.

Sou. Sheetal Subhash Ramugade Vs Vrushali Durvas Kadam — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905-wp-5642-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5642 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1395 OF 2016

¶4

Vrushali Durvas Kadam

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar a/w. Mr. Tanaji Mhatugade, for the Petitioner Mr. A.B. Vagyani, GP a/w. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. A.M. Adgule, for Respondent No. 3.

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 04, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶14

of India the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3^rd May, 2016 (Exhibit “D”) passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur as also the consequential order dated 4^th May, 2016 passed by the Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation.

¶15

The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Divisional Caste

1/4

Vishal Parekar

905-wp-5642-2016

Scrutiny Committee has rejected the Petitioner's claim on the ground that the Tahsildar, Karveer vide his communication dated 3^rd May, 2016 informed the Vigilance Cell that as per their record the certificate has not been issued from their office as the office copy of the same is not available in the record. The Vigilance Cell on receipt of the said letter on that day itself communicated to the Caste Scrutiny Committee about the said letter dated 3^rd May, 2016 received from the office of Tahsildar, Karveer. The letter of the Tahsildar reads thus:

¶20

^^bdMhy dk;kZy;kdMhy lu 2007 e/khy vuqlwfpr tkrh@fo-tkHk-t-@brj ekxkl izoxZ ;k nk[kY;kaP;k uksnog;k iMrkG.kh dsyh vlrk lkS-o”kkyh nqokZl dne ;kapk tkrhpk nk[kyk uksanfoysyk fnlqu ;sr ukghlnjph ekfgrh gh bdMhy uksanogh iMrkG.kh d:u fnysyh vkgs- fn27@08@2007 jksthP;k lkS- o”kkyh nqokZl dne ;kaP;k tkrhP;k uksan oghr fnlwu ;sr ukgh- fn-27@08@2017 jksth ;k dk;kZy;kdMqu vnk dsysY;k loZ tkrhizoxkZP;k nk[kY;klanHkkZrhy jftLVje/khy ikukP;k >sjkWDl izr ;klkscr tksM.;kr vkysY;k vkgsr- rlsp lkS-o`”kkyh nqokZl dne ;kauk vnk dsysY;k nk[kY;kph LFkGizr bdMhy vfHkys[kke/;s vk<Gwu vkysyh ukgh- ”

¶21

The Petitioner submits that however thereafter

¶22

immediately on the next day i.e. on 4^th May, 2016 the Tahsildar, Karveer informed the Vigilance Cell that the Petitioner's certificate is found as the same is traced. Copy of the same was also sent by the Tahsildar to the Vigilance Cell. Thus the Petitioner contends that as

2/4

Vishal Parekar

905-wp-5642-2016

the Committee proceeded the basis of the information which was then

¶27

found to be incorrect as the earlier information was given by the Tahsildar inadvertently which was subsequently corrected by the Tahsildar on the very next day. The impugned order be quashed

¶28

Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that since the decision of the Committee is based on the earlier communication which is now not existing as the Tahsildar has sent yet another communication dated 4^th May, 2016 the impugned order cannot be sustained. As a result, we quash the impugned order dated 3^rd May, 2016 passed by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee as also the consequential order dated 4^th May, 2016 passed by the Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and remand the matter back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the Petitioner's claim afresh. The matter be decided by the Committee uninfluenced by its earlier order and also by any of the observations made by this Court.

¶29

The Committee is expected to decide the matter in

¶30

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The Petitioner to

3/4

Vishal Parekar

905-wp-5642-2016

cooperate the Committee for the early disposal of the matter.

¶35

The Petitioner is permitted to file fresh documents before

¶36

the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶37

All the contentions raised in the Petition are kept open.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid, the Civil Application stands

¶40

disposed of.

¶41

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶42

4/4

¶43

Vishal Parekar

Sou. Sheetal Subhash Ramugade v. Vrushali Durvas Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Sheetal Subhash Ramugade v. Vrushali Durvas Kadam

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

Saurabh Agencies Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Others

Muktabai Manohar Shinde and 41 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Peppermint Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Vs Education Board, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Vrushali Durvas Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Vrushali Durvas Kadam Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sou. Sheetal Subhash Ramugade Vs Vrushali Durvas Kadam