Allowed

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Jul 2016WP/2300/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a caste certificate validity certificate issued in favour of a respondent by the Scrutiny Committee due to lack of recorded reasons and absence of a vigilance enquiry. The matter was remitted to the Committee for re-scrutiny following proper hearing procedures, with no adverse action against the respondent until final disposal.

What did the court decide?

The validity certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside; the matter is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for re-scrutiny after hearing within eight months.

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp230016.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2300 OF 2016

¶4

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre, age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture and Medical Practitioner, R/o Navnagapur, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

01 The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary for Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

02 The Member Secretary and Research Officer, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division Committee No.1, Nashik.

¶8

03 Sau. Sushila Yoshif Jagtap @ Sushila Kacharu Kharat, age: 51 years, Occ: Household, R/o Navnagapur, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr.Ashwin V. Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.M.Kagane, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶12

K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 26^th July, 2016

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶14

{2}

¶15

wp230016.odt

¶16

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶17

2 The petitioner is objecting to the validity certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, certifying that Respondent No.3 belongs to “Mahar”, Scheduled Caste.

¶18

3 In order to verify the contentions raised in the petition, we have directed Respondent-Scrutiny Committee to produce the original record relating to verification proposal in respect of Respondent No.3. On perusal of the record, it appears that notings prepared by the Scrutiny Committee and the order does not record reasons. Apart from this, relevant columns in the printed notes are kept blank. There was no vigilance enquiry in the matter before directing validation of caste certificate. The evidence produced on record also fall short of establishing claim of Respondent No.3. In the circumstances, since the Scrutiny Committee has issued validity certificate in breach of relevant rules, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee.

¶19

4 Writ Petition is, thus, allowed. The validity certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee. Respondent – Scrutiny Committee, after extending an opportunity of hearing to Respondent No.3 as well as petitioner and in observance of procedure prescribed under the Rules, shall proceed to scrutinise verification claim of Respondent No.3. The

¶20

{3}

¶21

wp230016.odt

¶22

Scrutiny Committee shall take appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight months from today. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner or Respondent No.3 and it would be open for the Scrutiny Committee to take decision on consideration of merits of claim of Respondent No.3.

¶23

5 It is informed that Respondent No.3 is occupying elected office of Sarpanch. Respondent No.1 or any other State authority shall not take any adverse action against Respondent No.3 on the ground of quashing of validity certificate issued in her favour, under the directions of this Court until disposal of his proposal for verification before the competent Committee i.e. Respondent No.2. Parties undertake to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 4^th August, 2016 and as such, no separate notice, requiring their presence before the Committee shall be necessary.

¶24

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

R.M.BORDE

¶26

K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶27

adb/wp230016

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babanrao Dashrath Dongre 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jijamata Mahila Bachat Gat through Its President Vithabai Gulba Kosambe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sitaram Baliram Korde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nurulla Khan Vahidulla Khan Pathan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Sayanna Dawewar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Girnai Paryavaran Sanrakshan Va Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha through Dhondu Bajirao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravikumar Mukundrao Nemmaniwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others