Remanded

Mit Harsad Patel v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2016WP/2169/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court in writ petition quashed Caste Scrutiny Committee order rejecting caste validity claim due to sister's prior approval on same facts, remanded matter for fresh consideration within three months relying on Apex Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision within three months.

Mit Harsad Patel Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

WP.2169/2014(40)

mnm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2169 OF 2014

¶6

Mit Harshad Patel

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

...Petitioner ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Bhushan P. Kakade, AGP for the Respondents

¶11

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &

¶12

M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 23^RD AUGUST, 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

. Parties through their Counsel. Learned Counsel while filing

¶15

this Writ Petition has challenged the order dated 24^th October, 2013 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Belapur, Navi Mumbai whereby the Petitioner's caste validity claim has been rejected.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

¶17

Petitioner's real sister namely Trisha Harshad Patel has been granted the caste validity certificate, which was duly validated by the same Committee prior to passing of the impugned order, but

¶18

WP.2169/2014(40)

¶19

¶20

this fact has been ignored by the Committee and the Petitioner's claim has been rejected.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/0 Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401 to contend that in such circumstances the Petitioner's claim should not have been rejected.

¶22

Having considered the statements made by the learned Counsel for the parties we are of the view that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered the Petitioner's claim that his sister has already been granted her caste certificate duly validated by the Committee on the same facts and same evidence.

¶23

In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order

¶24

and remand back the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the Petitioner's case afresh keeping in view the judgment passed in the case of Apoorva (supra) as expeditiously as possible, but in any case not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of

¶25

WP.2169/2014(40)

¶26

¶27

the copy of this order.

¶28