Disposed

Kashinath Raghunath Bagul v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Nov 2018WP/12813/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenging a Show Cause Notice under the Caste Certificate Act, 2001 for failure to produce a caste validity certificate. The Court directed the Committee to decide the claim by a fixed date and stayed coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency.

What did the court decide?

Direct Compositional Committee to decide caste/tribe claim by 28 February 2019; stay on coercive steps against petitioner's service.

Kashinath Raghunath Bagul Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

902.wp.12813.18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 12813 OF 2018

¶4

Kashinath Raghunath Bagul … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. T. V. Jadhav I/by Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondents – State.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT AND NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ. DATE : 2^nd NOVEMBER 2018.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

. The cause for approaching this Court by way of the above Writ Petition is the Show Cause Notice dated 24^th October 2018 (Exhibit – A) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Head Quarters, Nashik, by which Show Cause Notice the Petitioner has been asked to produce the caste validity certificate within 10 days, failing which, the Petitioner is informed that action would be taken under the Caste Certificate Act, 2001 against him.

¶9

The Petitioner's caste certificate has been sent for validation in

¶10

the year 2013 and the said proceedings are pending. During the pendency

¶11

Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav

¶12

1/2

¶13

Yadav VG

¶14

Digitally signed by Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav Date: 2018.11.03 13:06:15 +0530

¶15

902.wp.12813.18.odt

¶16

of the said proceedings the show cause notice dated 24^th October 2018 came to be issued to the Petitioner. The letter dated 19^th September 2018 addressed by the Committee to the Petitioner indicates that the home enquiry by the Vigilance Cell has been completed.

¶17

In our view, therefore, it is just and proper to direct the Respondent No.2 – Committee to decide the caste/tribe claim of the Petitioner latest by 28^th February 2019 by giving proper opportunity to the Petitioner.

¶18

The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2 – Committee on 15^th November 2018 and the Committee to thereafter decide the tribe claim of the Petitioner within the outer time limit fixed by the aforesaid order.

¶19

Until the caste/tribe claim of the Petitioner is decided by the Respondent No.2 – Committee, no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner in respect of his service.

¶20

With the directions as aforesaid, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶21

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

¶22

2/2

¶23

Yadav VG

Kashinath Raghunath Bagul v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Raghunath Bagul v. State of Maharashtra through 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisalp Realties LLP (Formerly Known as Nishalp Realties Private Limited) and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Dattatray Bhimashankar Tandale Vs Principal Secretary, Cooperation Marketing and Textile Department and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Laxmman Midgule and Anr. Vs Administrative Officer, Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Primary School Board and Ors.

Anand Bhaurao Meshram Vs Union of India through Finance Ministry and Ors.

K.S. Lakshminarasimhan Vs Airports Authority of India and Anr.