Allowed

Hemant S/O Madhav Nannaware v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC5 Oct 2018WP/3908/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowed connected writ petitions challenging orders of the Scrutiny Committee. The Committee had invalidated the petitioners' caste claims as 'Mana Scheduled Tribe' solely based on the existence of similar surnames without documentary evidence. The Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Committee to validate the petitioners' caste s

What did the court decide?

Quash and set aside impugned orders dated 25.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.03.2018, 12.07.2018, and 06.07.2018. Direct the Scrutiny Committee to give validity to petitioners.

Hemant S/O Madhav Nannaware Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

Order

0510wp3906.18

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3906/2018.

¶6

Sachin Lahuji Wakade - VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3907/2018.

¶8

Pranali Wamandrao Nannaware - VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3908/2018.

¶9

Hemant madhav Nannaware - VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others.

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 1806/2018.

¶11

Pushpa Motiram Chaukhe - VERSUS- The Chairman/Member Secretary and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 4600/2018.

¶12

Balkrushna Dinkar Sonwane - VERSUS- The Scheduled Tribe Caste and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 4601/2018.

¶13

Sunil Parshuram Bagade - VERSUS- The Scheduled Tribe Caste and others

¶14

Office notes, Office Memoranda of

¶15

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶16

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

¶17

DATE : OCTOBER 05, 2018.

¶18

Heard Shri P.P. Dhok, Shri A. Deshpande and Ms. P. Rane, learned counsel for petitioners, Ms. K.R. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the respondentsState and Scrutiny Committee and Shri S.A. Marathe and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for private respondents.

¶19

In all the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the caste claim of petitioners as Mana, Scheduled Tribe, only reason recoded is existence of 'Mana Kunbi, Mane Kunbi' and the

Order

0510wp3906.18

availability of surnames on which petitioners have placed reliance in those communities.

¶24

In case of petitioners, no document in which caste is recorded as either 'Mana Kunbi or Mane Kunbi' has been discovered.

¶25

Identical orders passed by the very same Committee at Gadchiroli are looked into by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5171/2018 and connected matters on 13.08.2018.

¶26

This Bench then has noticed that the caste recorded as Mane, Mani, Mana Kunbi, Mane Kunbi or Kunbi and found in paragraph no.13 of that judgment & that the Committee could not observe that any such caste independently existed.

¶27

In present matters, also said finding holds good. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 25.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.03.2018, 12.07.2018, 06.07.2018 respectively in above petitions.

¶28

Because of reasons recorded in judgment delivered by this Bench [supra], we direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to give validity to respective petitioners forthwith.

¶29

Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of. No cost.

¶30

JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

Rgd.

Hemant S/O Madhav Nannaware v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemant S/O Madhav Nannaware v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh S/O Panjabrao Gawande and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Departmenty, Mumbai and Others

Pratik S/O Pramodrao Dhakade Vs Centralized Counselling for M. Tech Admission, Delhi through Vice Chairperson and Others

State Election Commission, Maharashtra through Its Commissioner, Mumbai Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai and Others

Devidas Ramaji Tobare and Another Vs Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola

Arvind S/O Vasantrao Raut and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Shri. Bandu Bhauji Sidam and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Dept. Mumbai and Another