Dismissed

Datta Narayan Rane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC16 Mar 2021PIL/29/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging a caste certificate granted to Respondent No.8. The Bench held that the petitioner, a general category resident, lacked locus standi as he was a stranger to the proceedings and suffered no legal injury. The PIL was found to be non-bonafide and dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed with costs.

Datta Narayan Rane and Others Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

29.21PIL.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

903 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.29 OF 2021

¶5

DATTA NARAYAN RANE
VERSUS

¶6

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

¶7

Mr.Dhairyasheel V. Sutar and S.R.Dheple,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Patil, Additional G.P. for the
respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA&
SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI,JJ.

¶9

 DATE : 16.03.2021.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1]The petitioner under the present
litigation assailed the validity issued in
favour of respondent no.8.

¶12

2]Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that validity issued in favour of
respondent no.8 is based on erroneous
documents. The relationship of respondent
no.8 with the alleged grand-father is not
proved. The proper procedure is not followed.
According to the learned counsel, respondent
no.8 originally belongs to Kolhapur. She
obtained caste certificate from the Sub

¶13

29.21PIL.odt

¶14

¶15

Divisional Officer, Beed and validity
certificate from District Scrutiny Committee,
Beed. The genealogy has not proved. There was
no revenue record to prove the genealogy.
According to the learned counsel, four
persons had filed complaint before the
Scrutiny Committee during validation
proceedings. Two persons even filed Writ
Petition before this Court challenging
validity issued in favour of respondent no.8.
They withdrew the Writ Petition. The
petitioner is also resident of the same place
from where respondent no.8 is elected to the
Municipal Council. In view of that, the
petitioner has locus to file present PIL.
Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Mana Jamat Mitra Mandal
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in
2017 [1] Mh.L.J. 227.

¶16

3]Learned AGP for the respondent –
State submits that validity has been granted
in favour of respondent no.8 by the Committee
after following procedure. The vigilance was
conducted, the documents produced by the
complainant were also considered, and
thereafter, validity has been granted. The
census record of the year 1951, wherein caste

¶17

29.21PIL.odt

¶18

¶19

of the grand-father recorded as ‘Beda Jangam’
was also considered. The contra document

¶20

placed on record was also before the
Committee and all the documents were
considered. The vigilance report was also
considered before issuing validity to
respondent no.8.

¶21

4]We have heard submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned AGP.

¶22

5]It appears that the petitioner is a
stranger to the validity certificate issued
in favour of respondent no.8. The petitioner
at no material point of time had filed
complaint against respondent no.8 before the
Committee during validation proceedings. It
is only after the validity is issued; the
present PIL is filed four years later.

¶23

6]The petitioner does not belong to
caste to which respondent no.8 belongs. The
petitioner is from general category. The
petitioner would not possess locus to agitate
against the validity issued in favour of
respondent no.8, more particularly, when the
Committee before issuing validity certificate

¶24

29.21PIL.odt

¶25

¶26

has followed procedure of conducting
vigilance in respect of the documents placed
on record by respondent no.8 and the
complainant also. Pros and cons of the
vigilance report is considered by the
Committee.

¶27

7]The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in [2013] 4 SCC 465 has
observed that a stranger cannot be permitted
to meddle in any proceeding unless he
satisfies the authority or Court that he
falls within the category of aggrieved
persons. The petitioner has not suffered any
legal injury to maintain present PIL against
respondent no.8. The petitioner does not
possess any actionable right to maintain
present PIL.

¶28

8]It is not the case that the right
and interest of public at large are infringed
so that individual can approach this Court
and file PIL.

¶29

9]The procedure has been followed by
the Committee before issuing validity
certificate. The vigilance report has been

¶30

29.21PIL.odt

¶31

¶32

considered by the Committee. It is not the
case of the fraud on the Committee.

¶33

10]Considering all these aspects of the
matter, we find that the present PIL is not
bona fide one. In the light of that, the PIL
is dismissed with costs.

¶34

[SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI,J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶35

DDC

Datta Narayan Rane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Narayan Rane and Others 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tukaram Maruti Venjane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shaikh Budan Shaikh Gulab Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Thansing Harising Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aamshya Fulji Padvi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajesh Annasaheb Bhadgale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Bira Pawar Vs the Commissioner, State Election Commission and Others

Sayyed Yunus Sayyed Mannan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sateyan Pralhad Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary General Administration Dept. and Ors.

Shrimant Bibhishan Gandhale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kalpana Haribhau Katore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayaram Jganganna Narawad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivaji Rajaram Jangle Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Honbel State Minister and Others

Aleem Mirzha Baig Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepak Bhanudas Jagtap Vs Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute Thr Its Director and Others