Quashed

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2019WP/4292/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, civil appellate jurisdiction, addressed a writ petition challenging the invalidation of the petitioner's caste certificate issued by a Scrutiny Committee. The Court emphasized the procedural deficiency in the Committee's order, noting the necessity of discussing records and conducting further inquiries. The matter was remanded for a fresh opportunity to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15 October 2013 passed by the Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside; proceedings restored to the Scrutiny Committee for detailed inquiry.

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 13 WP 4292-2014.doc

¶2

Sequeira

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4292 OF 2014.

¶5

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶6

Mr.Jitendra Pathade, for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr.M.M.Pabale - Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N.M.JAMDAR, J. Date : 17 June, 2019.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The Petitioner claims to belong to Rajput Bhamta, a community recognised as a Vimukta Jati under the Government Resolution dated 21 November 1961.

¶11

The Petitioner applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malegaon for a Caste Certificate as belonging to Rajput Bhamta. The Sub-Divisional Officer, issued a certificate to that effect to the Petitioner on 30 December 2008.

¶12

The Petitioner, a student, was desirous of prosecuting

¶13

2 13 WP 4292-2014.doc

¶14

studies in the Science course. As per the provisions of the 'Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000' the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner was taken up for verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. As per Rules of 2003, the Vigilance Cell attached to Scrutiny Committee carried out a field enquiry and produced various documents including a validity Certificate issued to one Mr.Paresh Anandsingh Jadhav, who the Petitioner claims to be his grandfather's brother's grandson. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner by the order dated 15 October 2013. Hence the Petitioner is before us.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader.

¶16

It appears that the Petitioner had not given his say to the report of the Vigilance Cell. However the documents as they were produced should have been discussed by the Committee. The validity Certificate issued to Paresh was discarded only on the ground it may be of a close relative, but each case would turn on its facts. Though it may be a general position of law, such a one line reasoning alone cannot brush aside a validity Certificate of a close relative of the candidate. A further inquiry is necessary, which is totally missing.

¶17

3 13 WP 4292-2014.doc

¶18

The Petitioner states that he is now in posssession of a certificate of Validity of another close relative.

¶19

These facts we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be looked into in detail by the Committee. Since the proceedings would be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee, we give an opportunity to the Petitioner to file say to the report of the Vigilance Cell, and to produce additional documents, if any.

¶20

The impugned order dated 15 October 2013 passed by Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The proceedings stand restored to the file of the Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. The Petitioner will appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 1 July 2019. The Scrutiny Committee will give time to the Petitioner to file the say and additional documents if any and thereafter pass an order as per law.

¶21

We make it clear that what we have stated in this order is to emphasize the need for remand of the proceedings and the observations are not to be construed as a reflection on the merits of the Petitioner's case.

¶22

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhansingh Mahendrasingh Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Dept 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

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Aqdas Maritime Agency Private Limited

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Mr.Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Ltd.

All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association Vs Mumbai Circket Association and 2 Ors.

Nashik Zilla Parishad Prathamik Shikshak Kruti Samiti through Mr. Pravin Deshmukh Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Rafique Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.