Disposed

Bandu Sampat Pawar v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016PIL/104/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation alleging non-compliance with a previous direction to include a retired Judicial Officer in the caste certificate verification committee. The Court held that there was no mandatory positive direction and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner at liberty to approach the Court or make a representation based on the notification.

Bandu Sampat Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

dssherla

24-pil-104-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 104 OF 2016

¶6

Bandu Sampat Pawar .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, GP a/w. Mr. N.C. Walimbe for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶9

Ms Anjali Helekar a/w. A.A. Garge for Respondent No.4.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 07 OCTOBER 2016.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] The main contention of the writ petitioner is that no retired Judicial Officer is made as one of the Committee Members to be constituted under Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, 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.

¶13

2] We have gone through the directions of the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors.¹ , where certain observations are made how the Committee should be constituted and who should be Members of the Committee in order to make an enquiry

¶14

1 1994 (6) SCC 241

1 of 3

dssherla 2

24-pil-104-16

whether a particular candidate or herself belongs to a particular tribe or caste. We have also gone through the judgments of this Court annexed to the writ petition.

¶19

3] Insofar as the directions of the Division Bench of this Court is concerned, there is no mandate or positive direction to include any retired Judicial Officer to be one of the Committee Members to be constituted under the State enactment. It was an opinion in the form of a desire of the Bench to make Judicial Officer (Retired) as one of the Committee Members, therefore, there is no mandate or obligation on the part of the State to appoint retired Judicial Officer. If voluntarily they intend to do so one need not have any objection. But there is no positive mandate which can be said as directions of the Court to appoint such Judicial officer as a Member of the Committee.

¶20

4] On the other hand, there is obligation to follow the directions of the Apex Court in the formation of the Committee and also the status of the Officer who should be the Members of the Committee. In a particular given case, if such directions are not followed it is open to the general public to raise voice expressing their grievance by challenging either by representation to the concerned authority or challenging notification on the ground of non-compliance of the directions of the Apex Court. Under these circumstances, we decline to interfere in the present petition having regard to grievance raised and the reliefs sought. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court or make

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

dssherla 3 24-pil-104-16

¶23

a representation depending upon the notification, if any, issued by the State Government.

¶24

5] In view of above, we dispose of the present petition.

¶25

( CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶26

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Bandu Sampat Pawar v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu Sampat Pawar v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Chandrashekhar Shyamrao Tembhurne Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Thr Secretary Cooperative and Textile Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai and Oth

Shri Sachin Suresh Kadam Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Adivasi Punrvasn Andolan and Gavkari Samnya Sammitee, through Mr. Kishor Tatyarao Divekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jagdish S/O. Vasant Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohan Kumar Sukkhu Maurya Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dist. Collector, Thane and Ors.

Janahit Samajik Vikas Sanstha, through Secretary, Jitendra M. Patil Vs the Collector, Tal. Vasai and Anr.

Shri Anand Narayan Jammu Vs the State of Maha. Indutrial Development Corprotion, through Chief Executive Officer, Mumbai and Ot

Foruam for Fairness in Education Vs Manish Anadhansare and Ors.

Navnit Tarachand Kkhosla Vs Union of India and 10 Ors.

Seacrust Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Asiatic Properties Ltd. and 17 Others

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs M.T. Pratibha Koyna and 7 Ors. and a/S. Dan Bunkering Ltd. (Applicant/Intervener)

Manoj Jaswantlal Kapadia Vs the Principal Secretary 2 and Ors.

Mr. Bhau (Mhallar) Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of State Transport and Anr.

Salauddin Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.