Remanded

Mr. Chandrashekhar @ Chandrama Bhimsha Hugar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2016WP/3335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's caste claim and remanded the matter to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration, directing it to follow the precedent of Apoorva and decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Committee for fresh decision within three months.

Mr. Chandrashekhar @ Chandrama Bhimsha Hugar Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

31-WP-3335.2015.sxw

hvn

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3335 OF 2015

¶7

Mr. Chandrashekhar @ Chandrama Bhimsha Hugar

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Mr. C.K. Bhangoji i/by R.K. Mendadkar Advocate for the Petitioner

¶13

Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the State

¶14

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 18^th OCTOBER, 2016

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

Parties through their Counsel.

¶17

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 5^th August, 2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Solapur (for short hereinafter referred as “the Committee”) whereby rejecting the Petitioner's caste claim. According to the Petitioner before the Committee the Petitioner had submitted Caste Validity Certificate of his two sons, however those caste certificates have been ignored by the Committee and

¶18

31-WP-3335.2015.sxw

¶19

¶20

the Petitioner's claim has been rejected.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the decision

¶22

of the Committee is in contravention of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. He further submits that thereafter in number of cases by following the said judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva (supra) the matters have either been remanded back to the Committee for fresh consideration or the Petitions were being allowed.

¶23

On the other hand learned AGP appearing for the Respondents has supported the order passed by the Committee. He submits that the Committee has examined the entire aspect of the matter and has correctly passed the impugned order.

¶24

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusing various judgments passed from time to time including the decision taken in Apoorva's case (supra) we find that the Committee while considering the Petitioner's claim has ignored the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva (supra).

¶25

Thus the impugned order of the Committee cannot be sustained as it was the bounden duty of the Committee to have

¶26

31-WP-3335.2015.sxw

¶27

¶28

considered the certificates of the Petitioner's two sons and the Committee ought to have followed the law laid down by this Court in the case of Apoorva (supra).

¶29

In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order passed by the Committee and remand back the matter to the Committee for fresh decision keeping in mind various judgments passed by this Court and also the decision in the case of Apoorva (supra). The decision be taken by the Committee as expeditiously as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶30

The Petitioner to appear before the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, on 07.11.2016 at 11.00 am.

¶31

The interim order passed earlier to continue till the Committee decides.

¶32

The Petition is disposed of.

¶33

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

Mr. Chandrashekhar @ Chandrama Bhimsha Hugar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Chandrashekhar @ Chandrama Bhimsha Hugar v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. 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

Pradeep Balu Dhalpe and 2 Ors. Vs Maharashtra Vidya Vikas Mandal and 3 Ors.

Rakesh Rajendrakumar Agarwal Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mrs. Madhuri Sanjeev Ratnaparkhi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sunil Prem Lalla Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Suhas Narayanrao Pandhare Vs Shri Tulshiram Shripati Raskar and Anr.

Mr. Chinmay Manoj Wadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra