Partly allowed

Sayyeda Najmusshar Mir Shaker Ali v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2018WP/7114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed orders invalidating the Maratha caste claims of petitioners who had valid OC/Mujawar certificates issued to siblings. The matters were remanded to the committee to decide afresh after considering additional evidence within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed and set aside; matter remanded to committee for fresh decision within 3 months; no adverse action till validation pending; civil application disposed of.

Sayyeda Najmusshar Mir Shaker Ali Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 7108.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7108 OF 2012

¶4

Sayyeda Noorussher D/o. Mir Shaker Ali .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7114 OF 2012 WITH

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9349 OF 2017

¶8

Sayyeda Najmusshar D/o. Mir Shaker Ali .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶9

Shri Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 served.

¶10

Shri Kishor C. Sant, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ. DATE : 24th January, 2018

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Mr. Mukhedkar, learned advocate for the petitioners

¶14

submits that during the pendency of the writ petition real sister

¶15

2 wp 7108.12

¶16

of the petitioners namely Syeda Iram Andlib Mir Shaker Ali and real brother of the petitioners namely Syed Umair Arfat Mir Shaker Ali are issued the validity certificates of 'Mujawar', O.B.C. The learned advocate further submits that, while invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners the committee did not even refer to the reports of the vigilance. The reports of vigilance are in favour of the petitioners. Even the documents have not been properly appreciated by the committee.

¶17

Learned A.G.P. submits that, upon going through the records and hearing the petitioners, the committee has rightly rejected the claims of the petitioners.

¶18

The petitioners have filed on record the validity certificates issued to their real sister namely Syeda Iram Andlib Mir Shaker Ali on 27.2.2015 and to real brother of the petitioners namely Syed Umair Arfat Mir Shaker Ali on 29.11.2012. Both the validity certificates are issued after the caste claims of the petitioners are invalidated.

¶19

It will be for the committee to consider the evidence that

¶20

3 wp 7108.12

¶21

was put forth while issuing validities in favour of the real sister

¶22

and brother of the petitioners. So also, it would be open for the committee to consider the relevancy of the validities issued in favour of the real sister and brother of petitioners.

¶23

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders passed by the committee invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners and remit the matters to the committee for fresh decision, after considering additional evidence in the shape of validity certificates produced by the petitioners.

¶24

The impugned Judgments and orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are relegated before the committee. The petitioners shall appear before the committee on 6^th February, 2018. The petitioners on the said date may produce the copies of the validities granted in favour of the real brother and sister of the petitioners. The committee shall decide the proceedings afresh, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of appearance of the petitioners.

¶25

4 wp 7108.12

¶26

Depending upon the judgment delivered by the committee

¶27

the Educational Institution may take further steps with regard

¶28

to the Result / Degree Certificate of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7114 of 2012.

¶29

Till the validation proceedings are decided, adverse action

¶30

shall not be taken by the Institution against the petitioners.

¶31

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶32

In view of disposal of Writ Petition, the civil application

¶33

also stands disposed of.

¶34

[A. M. DHAVALE, J.]

¶35

[S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶36

marathe/Jan.18

Sayyeda Najmusshar Mir Shaker Ali v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyeda Najmusshar Mir Shaker Ali v. the State of Mah 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

Bhimrao Jalbaji Kamble and Others Vs Ujwal Uke and Others

Madhav Kashiram Awale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kishan Sayanna Nugrawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Lloyd Rockfibres Private Limited Aurangabad Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Priyanka Prakash Shirsewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Khandesh College Education Societys Girls and Boys Hostel M J College Campus through Its Rector S Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Nashik