Disposed

Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2018WP/11728/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding the petitioner's 'Kol' Scheduled Tribe claim. Ordering that the petitioner would separately challenge the Caste Scrutiny Committee order upon its formal service, the Court stayed the operation of the show cause notice for one week.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed with liberty to petitioner to challenge the Caste Scrutiny Committee order; show cause notice not to be acted upon for one week.

Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Its… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

ISM

¶2

1 912.11728.18 wp.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11728 OF 2018

¶6

Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra .....Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra through its Secretary .....Respondent and others

¶9

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the petitioner Mrs. R. M. Shinde AGP for the State Ms. Anjali Baxi for respondent no. 3

¶10

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & NITIN W SAMBRE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 25^th OCTOBER, 2018.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 produces the copy of the order dated 09/03/2018 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner in the above Petition has made it bold to assert that the petitioner has not received a copy of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 Ms. Baxi informs us that the

¶14

2 912.11728.18 wp.doc

¶15

copy was sent by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as is the practice as also the copy was sent by RPAD by the respondent no. 3 which is deemed to have been received by the petitioner. The said fact is sought to be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

2 We have perused the copy of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, especially the first page thereof. We have also seen the endorsement of the petitioner on the show cause notice dated 15/09/2018. On such perusal we prima facie find that the copy of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee having been served on the petitioner. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 states that the copy of the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee would be furnished to the petitioner during the course of the day.

¶17

3 In view of the fact that the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner would now be required to challenge the said order invalidating his tribe claim as belonging to 'Kol' Scheduled Tribe. It

¶18

3 912.11728.18 wp.doc

¶19

is therefore, not necessary to keep the above Writ Petition pending. Same to accordingly stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee which would be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. To facilitate the petitioner, raising such a challenge, the Show Cause notice dated 15/09/2018 not to be acted upon for a period of one week from date. We make it clear that at the end of the period of one week, the aforesaid protection would come to an end unless the petitioner obtains orders from the appropriate Court.

¶20

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaileshkumar Rameshchandra v. State of Maharashtra Thru Its Secretary and Ors.

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

Bhoruka Textiles Limited through Its Authorised Represent Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Ashokrao Rangrao Nagane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Maharashtra State Secondary School Non Teaching Organizations Corporaton , through Secretary and or Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

Airports Authority of India through Deputy Gen. Manager Vs Bhupendra Jagannath Patil

Nitin Ramkrishna Makude Vs Union of India through the Secretary and Ors.

Manoj Shankarlal Lohiya and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.