Dismissed

Jaipal S/O Shalikram Nagose v. Municipal Council, Paoni through Its Chief Officer and Another

Bombay HC7 Feb 2018WP/3212/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, dismissed the writ petition filed by an individual challenging the cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe status claim by a Scrutiny Committee, rejecting arguments regarding the sufficiency of the show-cause notice and the composition of the vigilance cell.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Jaipal S/O Shalikram Nagose Vs Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

0702wp3212.17.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3212/2017

¶5

Jaipal s/o Shalikram Nagose ...Versus... Municipal Council, Paoni, District – Bhandara, through its Chief Officer and another

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri Ram Karode, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Counsel for respondent no.1 Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent no.2

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : 07/02/2018

¶12

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 6/5/2016 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Gond-Gowari Scheduled Tribe.

¶13

For challenging the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made only two submissions. According to the first submission, the show-cause-notice served on the petitioner is not proper as the petitioner was not asked to show cause in respect of any fact or material. It is stated that though the research officer ought to have associated himself with the vigilance cell, in the instant case the research officer was not associated with the cell.

¶14

0702wp3212.17.odt

¶15

¶16

We are not inclined to uphold any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. On a reading of the showcause-notice, it appears that the petitioner was asked to show cause against the vigilance report. The vigilance report was clearly adverse to the petitioner as the petitioner had not substantiated his caste claim either on the basis of the documents where the caste “Gowari” was recorded instead of “GondGowari” and the petitioner had also failed to prove his affinity to Gond-Gowari Scheduled Tribe. Despite the service of the said show-cause-notice on the petitioner, the petitioner was not able to show cause against the adverse vigilance report. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the research office was not associated with the vigilance cell is liable to be rejected as it is contrary to the record. It is apparent from the perusal of the vigilance cell report that the research officer was associated with the vigilance cell and he has given his remarks in the report and has signed the same.

¶17

Since there is no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE JUDGE

¶19

Wadkar

Jaipal S/O Shalikram Nagose v. Municipal Council, Paoni through Its Chief Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal S/O Shalikram Nagose v. Municipal Council, Paoni through Its Chief Officer and Another

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

Kailash S/O. Deonath Gurao Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer, Kalmeshwar Dist. Nagpur and Another

Priti W/O. Durgaprasad Kanojiya and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Sadar Nagpur

Prashant S/O Madhukar Yamde Vs State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, P.S. Dhantoli, Nagpur

Rajesh @ Raju Kisan Raut Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Police Station Officer Police Station Washim Dist. Washim

Rekha @ Kanchan W/O Kamalkar Pohe and Another Vs the Authorised Officer, U.C.O. Bank, Yavatmal Branch at Yavatmal and Another

Devanand S/O Baliram Bale Vs State of Mah. through Secretary, Home Dept. and Another