Remanded

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Jul 2016CAW/1426/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil application challenging a Caste Scrutiny Committee order denying OBC status was disposed of by setting aside the order in light of a subsequent Government Resolution and remitting the matter for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration within three months; Writ Petition and Civil Application disposed of.

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 CAW.1426/2016-WP.8934/2013(S-

¶2

¶3

mnm

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1426 OF 2016 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8934 OF 2013

¶7

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje ...Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, advocate for the Applicant /Petitioner Mr. Asif Patel, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. S.B. Shetye, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. Tanaji Patil, Law Officer present

¶9

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 1^ST JULY, 2016

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Parties through their Counsel. Through this Petition the

¶12

Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20^th September, 2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. According to

¶13

the Petitioner while deciding the Petitioner's case the Caste Scrutiny Committee though held that the Petitioner belongs to “Vaishya Wani” category, but held that as the Petitioner is not of “Wani” category and as such he cannot be said to be

¶14

included in OBC category.

¶15

2 CAW.1426/2016-WP.8934/2013(S-

¶16

¶17

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that after passing of the impugned order the State Government has issued the Government Resolution (G.R) dated 14^th September, 2014 whereby making this position clear. He, therefore, submits that in view of this subsequent development the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back for deciding the issue afresh.

¶18

Learned AGP on instructions from the Law Officer Mr. Tanaji Patil has not disputed the aforesaid statement that a G.R dated 14^th September, 2014 has been issued by the State Government.

¶19

In the circumstances we are inclined to dispose of this Petition by setting aside the impugned order and by directing the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the Petitioner's

¶20

claim keeping in view the G.R dated 14^th September, 2014.

¶21

3 CAW.1426/2016-WP.8934/2013(S-

¶22

¶23

Let a fresh decision as aforesaid be taken by the Caste

¶24

Scrutiny Committee within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶25

With the aforesaid direction the Civil Application as well as the Writ Petition are disposed of.

¶26

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhangi Shrikant Birje v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Shree. Dipty Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Ramanlal Vyas and 12 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Reliance Corporate It Park Limited Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Meena Pandit Thitte Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.