Quashed

Shubham Tatyarao Ghate through Father Tatyarao Shankarrao Ghate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2019WP/1848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners challenged the rejection of their caste certificate applications by a Tahsildar order. The High Court observed the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction and the petitioners did not file online applications. It quashed the orders and directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the merits expeditiously within two months after online filing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; petitioners directed to file online applications; Sub Divisional Officer directed to decide merits within two months.

Shubham Tatyarao Ghate through Father… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 wp 1829.19+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2019

¶4

KAILASH MAROTI GHATE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mane Dhananjay A and
Mr. Bharat Pankaj A.

¶9

AGP for Respondents : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 1848 OF 2019

¶11

SHUBHAM TATYARAO GHATE

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶14

...

¶15

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mane Dhananjay A and
Mr. Bharat Pankaj A.

¶16

AGP for Respondents : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar

¶17

...

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2019

¶19

DNYANESHWAR TATYARAO GHATE

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶22

...

¶23

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mane Dhananjay A and
Mr. Bharat Pankaj A.

¶24

AGP for Respondents : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar

¶25

...

¶26

CORAM:S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE:03rd SEPTEMBER, 2019

¶27

2 wp 1829.19+

¶28

PER COURT:

¶29

1.The applications filed by the petitioners for
issuance of caste certificates are rejected by the
Tahsildar, Tuljapur, District - Osmanabad.
According to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the order could only have been passed
by the Sub Divisional Officer.

¶30

2.In fact we do not find that the petitioners
have made online applications.

¶31

3.The Tahsildar certainly does not have
jurisdiction to decide the application for
issuance of caste certificate.

¶32

4.In the light of above, we pass the following
order.

¶33

5.The impugned orders are quashed and set

¶34

aside. The petitioners in addition shall also file
online applications for issuance of caste
certificates. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Tuljapur, District – Osmanabad shall consider the

¶35

applications of the petitioners on its own merits

¶36

3 wp 1829.19+

¶37

and shall take decision on its own merits,
considering all the relevant aspects of the matter
including jurisdiction and shall take decision
upon the applications of the petitioners for
issuance of caste certificates expeditiously and
preferably within a period of two (02) months from

¶38

the date of receipt of the online applications.

¶39

6. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶40

No costs.

¶41

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶42

marathe

Shubham Tatyarao Ghate through Father Tatyarao Shankarrao Ghate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Tatyarao Ghate through Father Tatyarao Shankarrao Ghate 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

M/S Mahesh Oil Mill and Dal Mill through Proprietor Maharudra Bapurao Sakhare Vs the Authorized Officer Canara Bank and Others

Ashok Tukaram Sapkal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jalindar Sakharam Ambhore and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pundlikrao Aapparao Danave and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Tatyarao Ghate Tatyarao Shankarrao Ghate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kailash Maroti Ghate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others