Disposed

Vikrant Shivaji Bilpe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Oct 2016WP/10010/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition by petitioners claiming Scheduled Tribe status. The court held that certificates lacking the Sub Divisional Officer's name as per Rule 4(6) and 5(2)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes Rules, 2003, are non-compliant, particularly since Form "C" does not mandate listing documents. The petition was disposed of by directing the issuance of corrected

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to tender original certificates within a week, to be followed by the issuance of corrected certificates complying with Form "C" for the proposals to be accepted.

Vikrant Shivaji Bilpe and Another Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp1001016.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10010 OF 2016

¶4

01 Vikrant s/o Shivaji Bilpe 02 Sangram s/o Shivaji Bilpe

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.M.Vibhute, advocate for petitioners. Mr.V.M.Kagne, AGP for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶11

P.R.BORA, JJ. DATE : 01st October, 2016

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 In the instant petition, petitioners, who are inter se real brothers, make a grievance against the Scrutiny Committee in respect of non acceptance of hard copy of the proposal for verification of tribe certificate.

¶14

2 Petitioners claim to belong to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe and have already tendered online proposals to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of tribe certificate/s.

¶15

3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for Respondents, states on instructions, that copies of the tribe certificates, tendered by petitioners, are not in conformity with Form "C" provided under Rule 4(6) and 5(2) (a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short, “Rules, 2003”).

¶16

4 We have perused tribe certificates issued to the

¶17

{2}

¶18

wp1001016.odt

¶19

respective petitioners by the Sub Divisional Officer. It is noticed that the Sub Divisional Officer has not recorded his name below his signature on the tribe certificates, which is the requirement provided under Rules, 2003. The Sub Divisional Officer is not required to mention the list of documents in tribe certificate verified by him. The tribe certificate shall have to be issued strictly in conformity with rules and in given proforma i.e. Form “C”. The Sub Divisional Officer, thus, shall apply his mind and shall issue the certificates in conformity with Form "C" prescribed under the Rules, 2003.

¶20

5 The petitioners undertake to tender original tribe certificates to the Sub Divisional Officer within one week from today. On receipt of original tribe certificates, the Sub Divisional Officer shall issue corrected certificates to the respective petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of original tribe certificates. The petitioners shall thereafter tender hard copy of the proposals together with corrected certificate/s to the Scrutiny Committee directly. The Scrutiny Committee shall accept the proposals and proceed to consider verification of claims of the petitioners in accordance with law. The Scrutiny Committee shall take appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of proposals.

¶21

6 With the directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

P.R.BORA JUDGE

¶23

R.M.BORDE

¶24

JUDGE

Vikrant Shivaji Bilpe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Shivaji Bilpe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shaikh Ajimoddin Pachulal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shridhar Vasudeo Choure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kumari Amarpreet Kaur D/O Harpalsingh Ramgariah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Rajya Z P Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana Thu Its Authorized Person D M Sonvane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Sudhir Shivaji Ishi

Sudhakar Sitaram Kankal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others