Disposed

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC21 Dec 2018PIL/49/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed PIL praying for consideration of delay in caste certificate assessment and directions to decide representations. Court rejected prayer 'B' regarding infrastructure delays and directed relevant authorities to expeditiously decide representations dated 27.02.2018 without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to decide representations dated 27.02.2018 as expeditiously as possible.

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.49 OF 2018

¶3

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad

¶4

… Versus …

¶5

Union of India & ors.

¶6

Mrs. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 5/State

¶7

CORAM : P.B. VARALE & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

¶8

DATE : 21^st DECEMBER, 2018

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

1 By way of the present Public Interest Litigation the petitioner is

¶11

before this Court with two prayers viz. Prayer clause 'B' and 'C'. In so far as

¶12

prayer clause 'B' is concerned, the grievance seems to be of delay in decision

¶13

on the aspect of social status of a candidate. It is a known fact that a Special Act is now operating viz. The Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act. A

¶14

¶15

PIL_49_2018

¶16

candidate's desirous of assessment of his social status is at liberty to go before the competent forum and the forum so constituted under the Act undertakes the exercise and ultimately issue the certificate popularly known as Validity Certificate. It is also not in dispute, the Act provides the various procedural aspects in the process of the decision and these are the formalities specified in the Act. There is no question of giving any go bye to the procedural aspect of the Act. The prayer clause 'B' also proceeds on erroneous impression and assumption of the petitioner that there is a requirement of arranging process for having infrastructure. At the costs of repetition, we state that the infrastructure in the Forum of various committees at Division level is made available to the desirous candidates seeking their assessment of social status and ultimately praying for issuance of caste validity certificate/certificates. In view of this situation we are not inclined to consider prayer 'B'.

¶17

2 In so far as prayer clause 'C' is concerned, the petitioner prayed for directions to decide the representation dated 27.02.2018. Copy of the representation is placed on record. Perusal of the copy of representation shows that the representation is addressed to the Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Perusal

¶18

¶19

PIL_49_2018

¶20

of these representations show that the representations are submitted to

¶21

the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department and the Secretary of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶22

3 Notice was issued to the respondents. The learned AGP submitted that the State in general and the authorities in particular before whom representation is submitted having no objection would decide the representation on its own merits. The statement of the learned AGP takes care of prayer 'C' of the petition.

¶23

4 Resultantly, we dispose of the petition with direction to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 to decide the representations dated 27.02.2018 as expeditiously as possible. Needless to state on the merits of the representations.

¶24

( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( P.B. Varale ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶25

agd

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatna, Jalgaon Vs Union of India and Others

Subhash Namdev Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Subhash Namdev Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mah. Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (Prop.) Thru Shri. Mukund H. Jadwar vs Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vakil R. Karra Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Sudhir Ramchandra Karale Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors.

Ratan Soli Luth of Nashik Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Dagadu Sudamrao Khandave and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kiran @ Shailesh S/O. Chotu Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok S/O Dhondiba Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Barkya Navashya Gaikwad (C-8129) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shamrao Nandu Sapkale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhimrao Dadarao Kudar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suresh Vitthal Bakale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others