Allowed

Smt. Archana D/o Gajanan Ingle, v. The State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Sept 2017WP/2929/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed an order rejecting the petitioner's claim to Scheduled Tribe status. The Bench directed the Committee to issue the caste validity certificate within four weeks, noting the petitioner's family had already received certificates and a relevant precedent existed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20th September 2011 quashed and set aside; Committee directed to grant certificate within four weeks.

Smt. Archana D/o Gajanan Ingle, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

916-wp-2929-12.doc

¶2

Ladda(PS).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 of 2012

¶6

Smt. Archana d/o Gajanan Ingle

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Anr

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/with Mr. C.K. Bhangoji & Tanaji V. Jadhav, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 8^th September, 2017

¶13

FINAL ORDER :-

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶15

The petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 20^th September 2011 passed by Respondent No.2-the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, whereby petitioner's claim that she belongs to “Thakur” Scheduled tribe community has been rejected. The petitioner's father and sister have been already granted caste validity certificates for the said caste. Those documents were placed before Respondent No.2 Committee. Still over looking the admitted position on record, apart from the judgment passed by this Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Vs. SBI Colony, Bhagwan Nagar, Nagpur, by the impugned order the petitioner's claim has been rejected, which is, in our view, not sustainable and contrary to the facts as well as on law.

¶16

1 /2

¶17

916-wp-2929-12.doc

¶18

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Prakash Hiralal Bhamare Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 6972 of 2014) dated 27^th July, 2017 in support of his case.

¶19

Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

(i) The impugned order dated 20^th September, 2011 is quashed and set aside;

¶22

(ii) Respondent No.2- the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik is hereby directed to grant caste validity certificate to the petitioner as prayed within a period of four weeks from today;

¶23

(iii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

(SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J)

¶25

(ANOOP V. MOHTA,J)

¶26

2 /2

Smt. Archana D/o Gajanan Ingle, v. The State of Maharashtr and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Archana D/o Gajanan Ingle, v. The State of Maharashtr and Anr.

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

Pratiksha Mahadeo Rangur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh the Secretary and Ors.

Manojkumar Gunaji Atak and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh the Secretary and Ors.

Vaibhav Vasant Thakar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Suresh Chandrasen Ganesh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. P.A. Inamdar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. P.A. Inamdar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra , through Its Additional Chief Secretary and Ors.