This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
{1} 2-PIL-129-18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 129 OF 2018
Adiwasi Chetna Parishad, Through Chairman Dr. Shridhar Khandu Salunke ...Petitioner Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for Respondent/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE: 17th OCTOBER, 2018
ORAL ORDER :
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct to respondents that, while granting Scheduled Tribe validity certificate they should all Kolis in Khandesh
{2} 2-PIL-129-18
either as belonging to Koli Dhor or Tokre Koli and shall give validity certificate of scheduled tribe;
(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents that, while deciding the scheduled tribe Kolis in Khandesh the authority shall not deny the claim of Scheduled Tribes Koli simply because the school record or revenue record shows entry as Koli and not as Koli Dhor or Tokre Koli.
(C) The Collectors of Khandesh area, the respondent Nos.4 to 6, be directed to issue caste certificates to the persons of Khandesh area, who came with the documents that they belonging to Koli caste.
SCC 4. It will be useful for all purposes to refer certain observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said Judgment.
{3} 2-PIL-129-18
It reads -
33.....The jurisdiction of the High Court would be much more restricted while dealing with the question whether a particular caste or tribe would come within the purview of the notified Presidential Order, considering the language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
{4} 2-PIL-129-18
( MANISH PITALE ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE
mta
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and othersExplained¶17
(2001) 1 SCC 4 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Adiwasi Chetna Parishad
State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
