Allowed

Shaikh Humerabano Chandapasha, through Constituted Attorney Holder, Chandapasha Abdul Karim v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee-I, Solapur, through Member Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017WP/6812/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of caste validity certificate. Court noted her siblings held valid certificates for same caste without challenge. Relying on settled law, court allowed writ to direct issuance. Petitioner possesses Julaha caste status under OBC category.

What did the court decide?

Issued writ certiorari to quash impugned order of Caste Scrutiny Committee and direct issue of caste validity certificate to petitioner.

Shaikh Humerabano Chandapasha, through… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1-wp-6812-13.doc

¶2

Ladda(PS).

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6812 of 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1957 of 2017 IN WRIT PETITION No. 6812 of 2013

¶5

Shaikh Humenrabano d/o Chandpasha vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & Ors

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.P. Vanarase, AGP for Respondent No. 1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 20^th September, 2017

¶10

FINAL ORDER :-

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by Respondent Committee, whereby her application for caste validity certificate is rejected. The petitioner submitted that she belongs to Julaha caste which falls in OBC category.

¶13

We have gone through the reasons recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It appears that the petitioner’s two real brothers and sister have already been issued caste validity certificates, copies of which are annexed to the petition at page 16 to 18. These certificates have attained finality as there is no challenge to those certificates by any one for any reason. Therefore, in view of judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 and as issue is settled with regard to grant of

¶14

1 /2

¶15

1-wp-6812-13.doc

¶16

other reliefs paternal side relatives based upon the existing certificates and other paternal side relatives as there is no case of fraud and/or misrepresentation. Therefore, in view of this, we see no reason to deny the said certificate/claim of the petitioner. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter and in view of the settled position of law, declared by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7343 of 2013 Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition in terms of prayer clause (b) which is reproduced below:-

¶17

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari, orders, directions or any other orders, directions or appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and proceedings in respect of impugned order dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Respondent No.1 herein and after perusing the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order be pleased to quash and set aside the said order thereby directing respondent no.1 herein to issue the caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of the caste certificate dated 7/4/2012 which is marked as Exh. “F” herein.

¶18

1. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶19

1. In view of the above, civil application is also allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

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

¶21

(SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE,J) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J)

¶22

2 /2

Shaikh Humerabano Chandapasha, through Constituted Attorney Holder, Chandapasha Abdul Karim v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee-I, Solapur, through Member Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Humerabano Chandapasha, through Constituted Attorney Holder, Chandapasha Abdul Karim v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee-I, Solapur, through Member Secretary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Mehta and 2 Ors. Vs the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Snehal Suresh Rane Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Madhu Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors. Vs Punjab National Bank and 5 Ors.

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences , through Principal Vs Directorate of Technical Education and Anr.

Association of Management of Ayurvedic Medical Colleges of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.