Allowed

Ranjana Sanjay Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018WP/7009/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge Wadkar (bench of Vs. Naik & Upadhye) disposed of a writ petition seeking protection for an OBC Councillor whose caste claim was pending. The court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the claim within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim within eight months and protect petitioner's office.

Ranjana Sanjay Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1501wp7009.17 (1).odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7009/2017

¶5

Ranjana Sanjay Yadav ...Versus...

¶6

State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur and others

¶7

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

¶11

Shri A.P. Satpute, Counsel for petitioner

¶12

Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 3 Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Counsel for respondent no.2

¶13

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : 15/01/2018

¶14

According to the petitioner, though her caste claim is submitted to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, the Scrutiny Committee is not deciding the same.

¶15

It is stated that the petitioner is elected as a Councillor on a seat meant for the Other Backward Classes and if the office of the petitioner is not protected till her caste claim is decided, she would suffer a grave and irreparable loss.

¶16

Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee states, on instructions, that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending before the Scrutiny Committee and the case of the petitioner is referred to the Vigilance Cell for an enquiry. It is submitted that the caste claim of the petitioner would be decided in accordance with law as early as possible.

¶17

1501wp7009.17 (1).odt

¶18

¶19

Since the caste claim of the petitioner is still pending, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction against the respondent no.3 – Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner as early as possible and positively within eight months. Since the petitioner is elected as a Councillor, the office of the petitioner is protected till her caste claim is decided or till the matter in the case of Anant H. Ulahalkar is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶20

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶21

JUDGE JUDGE

¶22

Wadkar

Ranjana Sanjay Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Sanjay Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Chandrapur and Another

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

Shri Gajanan S/O Madhukar Gawner Vs Director of Technical Education Mumbai and 4 Others

Shri. Shriram S/O Raoji Atram Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Shri Bharat S/O Baburao Sedam Vs State of Maharashtra through Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Shri. Akshay S/O Dharma Madavi, Thr. P.O.A. Holder, Purshottam S/O Wasudeo Kulmathe and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur and Another

Sunil S/O Bhavrao Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Deparment, Mumbai and 3 Others

Zanklal S/O Surajlal Lilhare Vs Atul J. Gudadhe, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ratnara, Gondia

Ramesh S/O. Sakharam Pachange Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. M.I.D.C. Police Station Akola