Partly allowed

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Oct 2021WP/5678/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the order invalidating his claim as Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe. Court quashed impugned order and granted opportunity to produce grandfather's 1914 school record before the Committee for fresh decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order quashed and set aside. Mandate issued for Committee to decide proceedings afresh if appropriate document is produced.

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

.. 1 ..

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

1047 Writ Petition No.5678 Of 2021

¶4

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar

¶5

 .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

 .. Respondents

¶9

Mr Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr K.N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶10

 CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

¶11

 DATE : 08-10-2021

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1. The tribe claim of the petitioner of Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.

¶14

2.Amongst other grounds one of the submission made by
Mr Yeramwar, learned Advocate is that the petitioner before the
Committee could not place on record the old documents i.e. the
school record of the grand father of the petitioner of the year 1914
recording caste as ‘Tokre Koli’. The same would be a clinching
evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. The petitioner could lay
his hands on the documents now. The copy of it is filed in the writ
petition. The learned Advocate prays for remitting the matter back.

¶15

Gajanan

¶16

.. 2 ..

¶17

3.We have also heard the learned AGP for the Respondents -
State.

¶18

4.Considering that the matter pertains to the social status of the
petitioner, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the
petitioner. The petitioner may produce the attested / original
document in respect of the school record of his grand father namely
Narayan before the Respondent - Committee on or before
02-11-2021. The Committee, if it so finds it appropriate, may refer
the document for the vigilance and thereafter decide the proceedings
afresh, preferably within a period of six months.

¶19

5. For remitting the matter back, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

¶20

6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶21

( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE ...

¶22

Gajanan

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar 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

Madhav Ambadasrao Nirmal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sadashiv Vishwanath Sondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janseva Samajik Va Bahuudeshiya Sanstha Thr Its President Sunil Dilip Ramoshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sham Govind Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanak Sanjay Fatwani Vs the Union of India and Others

Bhimrao Vyankati Munde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others