Quashed

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jun 2016WP/4527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order invalidating the petitioner's ST caste certificate and the consequential disqualification as Sarpanch. The court held the Scrutiny Committee violated Rule 12 by failing to serve a show cause notice or grant a personal hearing before passing the order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 11th January 2016 and the consequential order dated 31st March 2016; remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to decide afresh.

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp-4527-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4527 OF 2016

¶4

Usha Mahadeo Jadhav @ Usha Tukaram Shinde ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w. Mr. C.K. Bhangoji, for the Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶6

ORDER RESERVED ON : JUNE 27, 2016

¶7

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 30, 2016 CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

The Petitioner has filed this Petition challenging the order

¶10

dated 11^th January, 2016 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune invalidating her caste certificate, as also the consequential order dated 31^st March, 2016 passed by the Collector, Satara thereby disqualifying the Petitioner as a Member and Sarpanch of village panchayat in terms of Section

¶11

10(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, before passing the impugned order, the committee has not provided any opportunity of hearing to

1/3

Vishal Parekar

wp-4527-2016

her. Her further grievance is that show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report conducted by the Vigilance Cell has not served upon her and without seeking her reply the impugned order has been passed by the committee. It is also the case of the Petitioner that while passing the impugned order various documents including the certificate of validity of caste in regard to the Petitioner's sister and brother have been ignored. The school leaving certificate of the Petitioner's father in which there is a mention about the caste has also been ignored.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned AGP for the State has supported the impugned order.

¶18

Having considered the submissions made by the parties and having gone through the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short “Rules”) we find that under Rule 12 an elaborate procedure has been prescribed which is to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee. As per the said procedure, the Scrutiny Committee is required to serve upon the report of the Vigilance Cell if it is adverse

2/3

Vishal Parekar

wp-4527-2016

to the interest of the applicant along with the show cause notice requiring the applicant to submit representation or reply if any, and then after giving personal hearing the decision is required to be taken. In the present case ignoring the said procedure contained in Rule 12 of the Rules, the impugned order has been passed.

¶23

In the circumstances, we have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 11^th January, 2016 passed by the committee and remit the matter back to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune for deciding the matter afresh by observing the provision contained in Rule 12 of the Rules.

¶24

As a result of setting aside the impugned order of the committee, the consequential order dated 31^st March, 2016 passed by the Collector, Satara also stands quashed. The Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶25

3/3

¶26

Vishal Parekar

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suaukatali M. Betgeri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Haji Mohamed Sussain Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Dhanaji Ganpati Vaidha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arvind Govind Attarde and 25 Ors. Vs the Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Shree. Dipty Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Smt. Usha Mahadeo Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.