Disposed

Shri. Shaikh Shafi Fakirbhai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2018WP/663/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the impugned order rejected the petitioner's claim for Kasai caste and failed to address his claim for Mulani caste. The petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to apply to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee for scrutiny of the Mulani caste certificate within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to apply to the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee for caste scrutiny of the Mulani caste certificate within four weeks.

Shri. Shaikh Shafi Fakirbhai Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Megha 42_wp_663_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2017

¶4

Shaikh Shafi Fakirbhai …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent- State.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶9

DATED: 12^th JUNE, 2018.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶12

parties. The Petitioner initially obtained caste certificate from Sub Divisional Officer, Wai that he belongs to Kasai Caste, which is an OBC caste. The said caste certificate was sent for scrutiny before the Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Pune Division-Kolhapur.

¶13

During the pendency of the proceedings before the caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Pune, Division-Kolhapur the Petitioner realised that he belongs to Mulani caste and not Kasai caste and therefore, he applied again to the Sub Divisional Officer at Wai and obtained caste certificate dated 15^th April, 2016 that he belongs to Mulani Caste, which is also recognised as OBC caste. On the basis of

¶14

Megha

¶15

1/3

¶16

Megha 42_wp_663_2017.doc

¶17

the said caste certificate the Petitioner made an application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 29^th August, 2016 pointing out the above facts. By the impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee rejected Petitioner's claim that he belongs to Kasai caste.

¶18

It is the contention of the Petitioner that initially, under the mistaken facts, he claimed that he belonged to Kasai caste. As a matter of fact, he belongs to Mulani caste and accordingly he returned the caste certificate which showed that he belonged to Kasai caste. The Petitioner does not object findings of the caste scrutiny committee that he does not belong to the Kasai caste. His grievance is that his claim that he belongs to Mulani caste is not decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

¶19

Having gone through the impugned order it is seen that there is no discussion about the Petitioner's claim that he belongs to Mulani caste. In the above said circumstances, we dispose of the petition by passing following order:-

¶20

(i) The Petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Divisional

¶21

Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee No.2 at Kolhapur for caste scrutiny of the certificate,

¶22

Megha

¶23

2/3

¶24

Megha 42_wp_663_2017.doc

¶25

under which he claims to be of Mulani caste within a period of four weeks from today.

¶26

(ii) In the event such application is filed by the Petitioner, the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny and Verification Committee No.2 at Kolhapur shall decide the Petitioner's caste claim independently on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order as expeditiously as possible.

¶27

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶28

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶29

Megha

¶30

3/3

Shri. Shaikh Shafi Fakirbhai v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shaikh Shafi Fakirbhai v. State of Maharashtra 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

Sheetal S. Gajabhiye and 2 Others Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 16 Others and Shreshta Rakesh and 12 Others

Khurshed Soli Dhondy Vs Her Royal Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Kingdom of the Neatherlands and Ors.

Sou. Sharada Tukaram Kadam and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Sayed Mohammed Rizwan Iqbal Hussain and 20 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Others

M/S. Trenchless Engineering Services (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Shri. Laxman Hari Bharate and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra through It Secretary and Ors.