Disposed

Kedar Madhukar Thate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2020PIL/69/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to notify additional economic backwardness indicators for EWS reservation. Court observed petitioner had not previously approached the State Government with representations and adjourned matter to exhaustion of remedies before filing suit.

What did the court decide?

None granted; PIL disposed with direction to petitioner to approach State Government with representation.

Kedar Madhukar Thate Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

913

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

913 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.69 OF 2020

¶4

KEDAR MADHUKAR THATE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr Kulkarni Akshay D. AGP for Respondents State: Mr S. G. Karlekar Advocate for Respondent No.8 : Mr M. D. Narwadkar

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 10th December, 2020

¶9

ORDER :

¶10

We have heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.G.P. appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Mr. Narwardkar, learned counsel appears for respondent No.8.

¶11

The petitioner is seeking directions against the State to notify other indicators of economic backwardness, mentioned in the Government Resolution granting Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation.

¶12

According to Mr. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the petitioner, the indicators provided for grant of EWS Certificate under the Central Scheme and the State Scheme varies to greater extent. Indicators for grant of EWS certificate for seeking benefit of EWS at the Central level is more stringent than the one taking benefits of EWS reservation in the State of Maharashtra. Under the Central Government Scheme for a person to be held entitled or identified as EWS, apart from gross annual income of less than 8 lacs, the persons should not possess agricultural land of five acres and above, residential plot of 1000 sq. ft and above, residential plot of 100

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

913

¶15

sq. yards and above in notified municipalities and residential plot of 200 sq. yards in areas other than notified municipalities

¶16

According to the learned counsel, while identifying the person from economical weaker section for State reservation, the only criteria is that his annual income should be less than Rs. 8 lac. Other indicators as required under the Central Scheme need not be possessed by a person taking benefit under the State policy.

¶17

The State of Maharashtra has granted E.W.S. reservation since 2019-20. The petitioner, it appears, has not approached the Government with the grievance so as to enable the State to consider the suggestion of the petitioner on merits. In the present petition, we do not find any illustration to suggest that the persons granted EWS Certificate, really do not belong to EWS.

¶18

It would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the State Government with suggestion/representation, which naturally the State Government would consider on its own merits., expeditiously.

¶19

Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶21

JPC

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Kedar Madhukar Thate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar Madhukar Thate 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

Mehraj Ahmed Ansari Gazi Salahuddin Ahmed Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others

Vijay Manikrao Bhamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Deepakdas S/O Ram Pravesh Das Vs Union of India, New Delhi through External Affairs Minister

Netrutva Foundation, Gadchiroli Thr. President Named Miss. Ashwini U. Wooike Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and Others

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Vijaykant Vikram Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrashekhar Raghavan Pillai and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mumbai and Others

Tajeem Education Society Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mehraj Ahmed Ansari Gazi Salahuddin Ahmed Ansari Vs the Union of India and Others

Shaikh Khairun Begum Abdul Saeed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Archana Dharmsing Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pawan Marotirao Manekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriram Shivaji Veer and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another