Allowed

Shivam Shivasamb Gudbenwad v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC15 Jan 2021WP/352/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order denying social status. Bench found inconsistencies in genealogies submitted by validity holder and petitioner. Court quashed impugned order and relegated matter to Scrutiny Committee for another opportunity to prove relationship.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside. Petitioner relegated to Scrutiny Committee to appear on 25 January 2021 with evidence.

Shivam Shivasamb Gudbenwad Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

W.P.352-2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2021

¶5

Shivram s/o Shivsamb Gudbenwad

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr C.R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for respondent-State

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 15th January 2021

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

After arguing the matter for some time, Mr Thorat, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given opportunity to prove the relationship of the petitioner with the validity holder Sanjay son of Gangadhar.

¶15

The learned A.G.P. has brought the record of validity holder Sanjay son of Gangadhar. It appears that Sanjay son of Gangadhar, in his own application seeking validity has shown the father of Maroti as Sayanna. In the present case, the father of Maroti is shown as Bhumanna and Shivsamb in the genealogy submitted by him has shown father of Maroti as Narsing. These three genealogies do not support each other. On the contrary, raises suspicion about the correctness of the genealogies.

¶16

Today, Sanjay son of Gangadhar has filed affidavit to contend that the petitioner herein is his paternal cousin. In the genealogy submitted by him along with his affidavit, he has shown father of Maroti as Bhumanna. The same appears to be contrary to his own application seeking validity. In the said application, he has shown father of Maroti as Sayanna.

¶17

¶18

W.P.352-2021

¶19

Considering the request of Mr Thorat, learned Advocate for the petitioner that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to prove the relationship of the petitioner with the validity holder and considering the matter pertains to the social status of the petitioner, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.

¶20

In light of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is relegated before the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 25th January 2021. The petitioner may place on record such facts to prove his relationship with the validity holders. Naturally, the Committee would consider the said fact in accordance with the procedure and the law and decide the proceeding on its own merits expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

¶21

6. Writ Petition disposed of. No costs.

¶22

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

¶23

vvr

Shivam Shivasamb Gudbenwad v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Shivasamb Gudbenwad v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monika Rajenra Mhaske Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Rekha Deepak Jatal Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Others

Inamdar Mohsin Mohammed Harun Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Others

Laxminarayan Chotelal Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Sanjivan Devidas Ghogre Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Additional Commissioner Tribal

Sulbha Vasant Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others