Allowed

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Nov 2020WP/187/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned order invalidating the petitioner's caste claim of belonging to the 'Teli' O.B.C. category. The Court set aside the decision and directed the scrutiny committee to examine a specific ancestral document (Hakk Nondani Patrak) if produced by the petitioner, considering the social implications of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the impugned order; relegated the matter to the scrutiny committee to examine the petitioner's ancestral document and take a fresh decision.

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 108-wp 187-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 187 OF 2020

¶4

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Chandrakant D. Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 02nd NOVEMBER, 2020.

¶12

PER COURT:-

¶13

.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

¶14

2. The caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated. The petitioner

¶15

was claiming to belong to “Teli” O.B.C. category.

¶16

3.During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner could not produce before the
committee Hakk Nondani Patrak of 1351 Fasali. The name of the great
grandfather of the petitioner namely Bhivaji is recorded in Hakk
Nondani Patrak and he is shown as “Teli”. The learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to place the same

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

2 108-wp 187-2020.odt

¶19

before the scrutiny committee.

¶20

4. The learned A.G.P. submits that the said document was not before the committee. There were no documents inspiring confidence.

¶21

5.It is a fact that the document, the copy of which is produced by
the petitioner namely Hakk Nondani Patrak of 1351 Fasali was not
before the committee. The committee could not get opportunity to
conduct vigilance for the said document. The petitioner would also
have to prove the relationship of the person named in the said
document with that of the petitioner.

¶22

6. Considering that the present matter pertains to the social status of the petitioner, we are inclined to give one opportunity to the petitioner.

¶23

7. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶24

8.The parties are relegated to the scrutiny committee. The
petitioner shall place on record the certified copy of the Hakk Nondani
Patrak of 1351 Fasali (page no. 82) before the committee. The
committee may conduct vigilance of the said document and shall also
confirm the relationship of the petitioner with the person named in the
said document and take decision afresh after hearing the petitioner.

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

3 108-wp 187-2020.odt

¶27

9. The petitioner shall appear before the committee on 05.11.2020.

¶28

10.Considering the fact that the petitioner has appeared for NEET
exam, the committee may endeavour to decide the validation
proceeding by 25.11.2020.

¶29

11.Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶30

( R. G. AVACHAT )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶31

P.S.B.

¶32

3 of 3

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Baban Rankhamb 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

Ajay Deep Construction Private Limited through Its Authorized Signatory Ajit Laxmanbhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Azizkhan Yusufkhan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Potanna Goskulwad Vs the State of Maharastra and Others

Lalit Shivdas Chaure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shree Swami Samarth Bahuddeshiya Sansthas Savitribai Phule Nursing School at Kannad Anm and Gnm Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mauli Charitable Trust Kohinoor Nursing School Anm at Ujani through Its Secrertary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others