Allowed

Rajaram Pralhad Adbane v. Madansing Shivlal Ghusinge and Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2017WP/2629/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bench allowed a writ petition challenging a Collector's order disqualifying the petitioner from belonging to a Village Panchayat. The Court quashed the disqualification, holding the Collector lacked jurisdiction as reliance on a G.R. regarding SC/OBC certificates was misplaced for ST category. The petitioner remains disqualified only pending the Caste Scrutiny Committee's decision.

What did the court decide?

Collector order quashed; petitioner's caste verification proposal directed to be decided by Scrutiny Committee within six months.

Rajaram Pralhad Adbane Vs Madansing Shivlal Ghusinge and Others — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp2629.17

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2629 OF 2017

¶5

Rajaram s/o. Pralhad Adbane..Petitioner
Age. 37 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. At/Po. Panchanwadgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Madansing s/o. Shivlal Ghusinge

¶8

Madansing s/o. Shivlal Ghusinge .. Respondents Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. At/Po. Panchanwadgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶9

2. Badalsing s/o. Bhausing Ghusinge

¶10

Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. At/Po. Panchanwadgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.

¶11

3. The Additional Collector of district, Collector Office, Jalna.

¶12

4. The Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad.

¶13

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna, Dist. Jalna.

¶14

6. The Tahsildar, Jalna,

¶15

District – Jalna.

¶16

7. District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Jalna, Through its Member Secretary

¶17

Mr.Abhineet P. Avhad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr.P.A. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
Mr.A.V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for respondent/State.

¶18

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :14.08.2017

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER : R.M. BORDE,J.] :-

¶20

1.Heard.

¶21

2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with

¶22

the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for
final disposal at this stage.

¶23

3.The petitioner is objecting to the order passed
by the Collector holding him disqualified to continue as
a Member of the Village Panchayat on the ground that the
petitioner while tendering nomination papers for
contesting election has relied upon a tribe certificate
issued by the Executive Magistrate, Jalna, on 27.02.1998,
who according to the Collector was not authorized to

¶24

issue such certificate. It is held by the Collector that

¶25

on 27.02.1998, the Executive Magistrate was not

¶26

authorized to issue caste certificate certifying that the
petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe category. The
decision has been rendered by the Collector under section

¶27

14-k read with section 16(2) of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act, 1958. The Collector, in order to conclude

¶28

that the Executive Magistrate is not invested with the jurisdiction to issue tribe certificate, has placed reliance on the Government Resolution bearing No. lhchlh 1096/ iz-dz- 48/ ekoG -5 dated 03.06.1996. The Government

¶29

Resolution referred to above bears the same number as has

¶30

been recorded in the title except for the date 9th July,
1996. Both the Resolutions allegedly are issued on
03.06.1996 and 09.07.1996 relating to the procedure for
issuance of the caste certificate to the reserved
category candidates belonging to the schedule castes, VJ,

¶31

OBC and special backward category. The Government

¶32

Resolution referred to above does not relate to scheduled

¶33

tribes category. The petitioner belongs to scheduled

¶34

tribe category and as such reliance placed by the
Collector on the Government Resolution dated 09.07.1996
is misplaced. The Collector has proceeded to pass order
without application of mind to the record of the case and
as such order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶35

4.Apart from this, it is informed by the Counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner that the caste certificate
issued to him is referred to the scrutiny committee and
the proposal is stated to be pending. The Division Bench
of this Court to which one of us [R.M.Borde,J.] was
party, while dealing with identical issue in the matter
of Shivling Umrao Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R.622 has held in Para 20 of
the judgment as under :-

¶37

“21.We are supported in our view by the
reported judgments cited (supra) by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner. We are therefore
convinced that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is
empowered to enquire into the genuineness of the
caste certificates. At the same time the
Collector is not empowered and entitled under
the provisions of sections 14 and 16 of the Act,

¶38

1958 to disqualify an elected candidate and
unseat him by declaring his seat as fallen
vacant on the ground that the caste certificate
was not issued by the competent authority or the
caste certificate was a forged and bogus one.”

¶39

5.The exercise of jurisdiction by the Collector is

¶40

beyond powers vested in him under section 16 of the Act.
Even otherwise reliance placed by the Collector on the
Government Resolution dated 09.07.1996 is misplaced. It

¶41

is not even factually clear as to whether on the given
date the Executive Magistrate was empowered to issue
caste certificate or not. Since the issue is pending
with the Scrutiny Committee, it would be open for the
Scrutiny Committee to deal with the said issue.

¶42

6.In the circumstances, the writ petition is

¶43

allowed. The order passed by the Collector on 28.12.2016

¶44

impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. The
Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste

¶45

certificate verification proposal of the petitioner
pending with it as expeditiously as possible, preferably

¶46

within a period of six months from today and it is
accordingly directed.

¶47

7.Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall

¶48

be no order as to costs.

¶49

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [R.M.BORDE,J.]

¶50

snk/2017/AUG17/ wp2629.17

Rajaram Pralhad Adbane v. Madansing Shivlal Ghusinge and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Pralhad Adbane v. Madansing Shivlal Ghusinge and Others

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

Mangalbai Jeevanrao Shivgan and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Madhavrao Dode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M.I.D.C. Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur Vs Nagnath Nama Maske and Anr.

Kashinath Gopinath Sunepwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Village Panchayat Sonari through Its Gramsevak and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kamladevi Nandlal Rathi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others