Allowed

Pooja Ranjit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Dec 2017WP/8349/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions challenging the invalidation of a caste claim as Rajput Bhamta, the High Court quashed the impugned orders. The Court, without delving into merits, remitted the matter to the Committee to conduct an affinity test and decide afresh within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted to Committee to conduct affinity test and decide afresh.

Pooja Ranjit Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8349 OF 2015

¶5

Pooja D/o Ranjit Patil

¶6

... Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and another.

¶9

... Respondents.

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.882 OF 2017

¶12

Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar,advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Patil, Additional Government Pleader for the State. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 served.

¶13

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.

¶14

Date : 05.12.2017.

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

The caste claim of the petitioners as Rajput Bhamta (V.J.) is invalidated. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitions.

¶17

Mr.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in Writ Petition

¶18

¶19

No.8349/2015, the father of the petitioner has

¶20

been issued with the validity certificate. However, learned counsel submits that the said validity certificate is not been properly construed. Amongst other submissions, Mr.Sagar Killarikar, learned counsel submits that in both these matters the affinity test is not conducted though Research Officer was very much part of the Committee. According to the learned counsel, all the attending circumstances are required to be considered. Learned counsel prays for remitting the matters to the Committee.

¶21

Mr.Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader submits that validity in favour of the father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8349/2015 has been rightly discarded. The learned Additional Government Pleader, however, accedes to the fact that affinity test has not been conducted in both these matters and that the same is required to be conducted by the Committee.

¶22

In light of the above, without entering

¶23

¶24

into the merits of the contentions of either of the parties, it will be appropriate to remit the matters to the Committee for conducting the affinity test and thereafter decide the proceedings afresh.

¶25

In the result, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the Committee. The petitioners shall appear before the Committee on 18.12.2017. The Committee shall conduct the affinity test. The petitioners are entitled to produce additional evidence if they so desire. The Committee shall endeavour to dispose of the proceedings on its own merits, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of appearance of the petitioners.

¶26

The Writ Petitions are disposed of. No

¶27

costs.

¶28

asp/office/wp8349.15

¶29

(S.M.GAVHANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶30

¶31

Pooja Ranjit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Ranjit Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Shivkumar Narwsngrao Halkude

Shyam Suryakant Kolpe Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Mustafa Baba Khan Patel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganpat Dasu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Bhaurao Naikwade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagan Vithoba Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others