Allowed

Vanita Nitin Shete v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2018WP/9107/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge division held that the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee passed a non-speaking order rejecting the petitioner's caste validity claim without elaborating on why documents were unreliable, thus failing to consider the reply to the show-cause notice properly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Committee for fresh decision with hearing. Petitioner to appear on 05/09/2018; no coercive steps until decision.

Vanita Nitin Shete Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

ISM

¶2

1 903.9107.16 wp.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9107 OF 2016

¶6

Vanita Nitin Shete .....Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State of Maharashtra through Secretary .....Respondents and others

¶9

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Mr. C. K. Bhangoji for the petitioner Mr. Sandeep Babar AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4 Mr. S. P. Shivalkar, Law Officer-District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Solapur

¶10

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶11

DATE : AUGUST 23, 2018.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

2 By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶15

India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 17/07/2016 Exhibit

¶16

'A' passed by respondent no. 2 Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee

¶17

2 903.9107.16 wp.doc

¶18

No. 1, Solapur (for short 'the Committee') whereby petitioner's caste validity claim as belonging to 'Lingayat-Vani' has been rejected holding that the documents filed by the petitioner after receipt of show cause notice, to be not reliable.

¶19

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said reason assigned by the Committee cannot be said to be arrived at after due application of mind. It is not clear in the order as to why the Committee has reached to the conclusion that the said documents are not reliable. Thus he submits that the impugned order being a non-speaking order, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Committee for taking fresh decision.

¶20

4 On the other hand, the learned AGP has supported the impugned order. He submits that in the said documents, prima facie there appears to be some interpolation by adding the word 'Vani' and therefore the Committee has rightly rejected the petitioner's claim for validation of his caste certificate.

¶21

3 903.9107.16 wp.doc

¶22

5 Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record which was produced before us for perusal, we are of the view that before passing the impugned order, the Committee has not considered the various documents including documents which were produced by the petitioner with the reply to the show cause notice issued by the Committee. It appears that the Committee has brushed aside the said documents merely by observing thus:

¶23

^^lnj iqjkO;kaps voyksdu dsys vlrk lnj iqjkos fo'oklkgZ fnlwu ;sr ukghr- R;keqGs lnj iqjkos lferhus fopkjkr ?ksrysys ukghr-**

¶24

6 The aforesaid reason for discarding the caste validity claim cannot be said to be sufficient as the Committee was required to give elaborate reasons for discarding the documents submitted by the petitioner along with reply to the show cause notice. The order is thus clearly a non-speaking order.

¶25

4 903.9107.16 wp.doc

¶26

7 In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Committee for taking fresh decision, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 05/09/2018 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee shall thereafter decide the matter within 4 months, in accordance with law. Till the petitioner's matter is decided, no coercive steps be taken by respondent no. 3 Collector against the petitioner on the ground of non submission of caste validity certificate.

¶27

8 The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

¶28

[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.] [SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.]

¶29

Digitally signed by Iresh Iresh Siddharam Mashal Siddharam Date: Mashal 2018.08.24 10:41:58 +0530

Vanita Nitin Shete v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanita Nitin Shete v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Finserv Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Finserv Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bajaj Finsery Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thru. Dept of Rural Development and Revenue Dept. and Anr.

Sandeep Dnyanadeo Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sajjad Moinuddin Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra , through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Vanshakti and Anr. Vs the Chairman, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Ors.