Allowed

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018WP/524/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed this writ petition quashing the order of the Scrutiny Committee which invalidated a Scheduled Tribe certificate on technical grounds of spelling mistakes. The court directed the Committee to verify the correction produced by the petitioner without further enquiry and decided the matter on merit within a year.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order quashed. Certificate to be returned. Corrected certificate to be produced without further enquiry. Committee to decide on merit within one year.

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Sr14 WP524.2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 524 OF 2018

¶4

Shashikant S/o Babanrao Pandhare Age : 40 years, Occu. Education, R/o. S.T. Colony, Near Mahadeo Mandir, Sanja Road, Dist. Osmanabad. … Petitioner

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶7

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny/Verification Committee, Aurangabad.

¶8

Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Osmanabad.

¶9

Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Tuljapur Division, Behind Old Bus Stand, Tuljapur, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. … Respondents

¶10

Mr O. B. Boinwad, Advocate for the petitioner Mr S. G. Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State

¶11

2 Sr14 WP524.2018

¶12

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 15^TH JANUARY, 2018.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-

¶15

Heard.

¶16

Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

¶17

for final decision at admission stage.

¶18

The petitioner is taking exception to the decision rendered

¶19

by the Scrutiny Committee, directing invalidation of the tribe certificate issued to him, certifying him that he is belonging to Koli Mahadev, scheduled tribe, on technical ground of occurrence of spelling mistake, or discrepancies in writing the nomenclature of the tribe in the certificate issued by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer.

¶20

The issue raised in this petition is no more res integra and is covered by the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 6263 of 2017 and other companion matters. For the reasons recorded in the Judgment referred to above, the instant petition also deserves to be

¶21

3 Sr14 WP524.2018

¶22

allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.

¶23

The order impugned in the instant petition stands quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to return the original tribe certificate produced by the petitioners before it, within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall tender an undertaking to the Scrutiny Committee that the concerned petitioner would approach the concerned competent scrutiny committee for ratifying the spelling mistake/discrepancy in recording the nomenclature of the tribe and shall produce the corrected certificate within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the original certificate. The petitioner shall approach the concerned Sub Divisional Officer for recording correction in the tribe certificate already issued to him. The concerned Sub Divisional Officer shall issue corrected certificate within a period of four weeks from the date of approach of the petitioner, without embarking upon any further enquiry in the matter. On receipt of corrected certificate, within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt. The Scrutiny Committee shall, thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner for validation of the tribe certificate and render decision on the proposal, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the corrected certificate together with proposal if any. It would be open for the petitioner to

¶24

4 Sr14 WP524.2018

¶25

tender the corrected certificate and the proposal directly to the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee shall entertain the same and shall proceed to decide the matter on its own merit and shall not reject it on any technical grounds.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶27

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

In the mean while, no coercive action be taken against the

¶29

petitioner, merely on the ground of invalidation of the tribe certificate on technical ground.

¶30

[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

Punde

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Tirupati Bandu Renewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Suryabhan Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Ashwin Tractors through Its Proprietor Ashwin Shantaram Patil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Tukaram Warangale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mamta Pandurang Nimje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lalchand Dhanraj Patil Vs the Union of India and Others