Quashed

Nanda Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. Vimal Dagdu Bansode and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2016WP/5527/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad held that a validation certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 1 was invalid due to procedural flaws including absence of date, lack of reasoning, and irregular constitution of the Committee. The order was quashed and the matter remitted.

What did the court decide?

The quashed order is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration within six months of receipt of the proposal.

Nanda Laxmanrao Gaikwad Vs Vimal Dagdu Bansode and Another — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp5527.14.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 2014

¶5

Nanda d/o Laxmanrao Gaikwad age 42 years, occ. Social work & advocate, r/o Rajwada Daulatabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Vimal w/o Dagdu Bansode, age 55 years, occ. Household, r/o Daulatabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

The Divisional Caste Verification

¶9

Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.S. Patil, AGP for the State.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for respondent no.1.

¶12

=====

¶13

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 27^th JANUARY, 2016.

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶18

parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶19

Petitioner is objecting to the validation certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 1 by respondent no. 2 – Committee. On perusal of the order annexed at page 29, it is observed that the validation order issued by the Committee does not bear the date on which the order has been issued nor it

¶20

wp5527.14.doc

¶21

¶22

contains any reason in support of the decision of validating caste certificate issued in favour of respondent no.1.

¶23

Scrutiny Committee is expected to record reasons in support of the decision and, the order as has been issued in the instant matter is not expected to be issued by the Scrutiny Committee. It is observed that the Scrutiny Committee has merely filled in the blanks in the format which has not been prescribed. Apart from this, the order has been issued by the District Committee, constitution of which is not in consonance with the regulations. In view of the deficiencies pointed out, it would be appropriate for the Committee to re-consider the issue afresh after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶24

Decision rendered by the Committee directing validation of the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 1 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny Committee for consideration in accordance with provisions of law. Respondent no. 1 shall tender proposal in the prescribed form to respondent no. 2 – Committee, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent no. 2 – Committee shall proceed to determine the validation claim of respondent no. 1 in accordance with provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the proposal. It is further directed that no adverse action shall be taken against petitioner on the ground of quashment of order passed by the District Committee directing validation of

¶25

wp5527.14.doc

¶26

¶27

the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 1 and, appropriate action, if deemed necessary, shall be taken, subject to the decision that may be rendered by respondent no. 2. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

( A.I.S. CHEEMA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

dyb

Nanda Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. Vimal Dagdu Bansode and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanda Laxmanrao Gaikwad v. Vimal Dagdu Bansode and Another

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

Dhanai Punai Adhyapak Mandal and Anr. Vs Hilal Nago Mahajan and Ors.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission Bombay through Secretary Vs Lata Sakharam Sanap and Anr.

Vasant Kulkarni, Lrs Bhagwan Vasant Kulkarni Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangeeta Electricals and Refrigeration Nanded through Its Proprietor Sanjay Sudhakarrao Sahare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahaling Bapurao Bhise and Anr. Vs the Charity Commissioner, Mah. State and Ors.

Nalini Baban Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others