Allowed

Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2021WP/816/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe Certificate application and remanded it to the Scrutiny Committee to decide on merits by October 30, 2021, protecting the petitioner from service termination during the pendency.

What did the court decide?

Quashed order dated 22.01.2020; remanded matter to Committee with deadline 30.10.2021; interim stay on coercive steps against petitioner.

Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

17.as.wp.816.21_iast.6129.21.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 816 OF 2021

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 6129 OF 2021

¶7

Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur .. Petitioner/Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors... Respondents

¶10

Mr. R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner

¶11

Ms. Anjali Helekar a/w. A.A.Garge for Respondent No.3

¶12

Mr. S.S.Panchpor, AGP for the State

¶13

CORAM : K.K. TATED &

¶14

 R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : APRIL 8, 2021

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane rejecting the Petitioner's application for issuing cast validity certificate.

¶19

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits

¶20

that Respondent No.1A i.e. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

¶21

1 of 3

¶22

17.as.wp.816.21_iast.6129.21.doc

¶23

Committee, failed and neglected to consider the documents on record
at the time of deciding appeal of Petitioner. He submits that on
05.04.2021, this Court after hearing both the sides, passed an order
and directed learned AGP to take instructions within how much time,
the Committee will decide the Petitioner’s application for issuance of
cast validity certificate if the matter is remanded back to them.

¶24

4. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the RespondentCommittee submits that he has received instructions from the Committee that the Committee will take atleast six months time to decide the Petitioner’s application (because of Covid-19 situation).

¶25

5. Considering the submissions made by both the parties and the earlier order dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Court, the following order is passed :

¶26

(a)Order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division,
Thane in the Petitioner’s case is quashed and set aside;

¶27

(b) Matter is remanded back to the Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane to
decide the Petitioner’s application on its own merits after
considering all the documents on record as recorded in
our order dated 05.04.2021. The Committee shall take
decision thereon on or before 30.10.2021;

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

17.as.wp.816.21_iast.6129.21.doc

¶30

(c) Till the decision is taken by the Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kokan Division, Thane
and two weeks thereafter in case if the decision goes
against the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 is directed not to
take any coercive step against the Petitioner i.e. not to
terminate his services on the basis of non production of
cast validity certificate from the committee.

¶31

6. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶32

7. Writ Petition as well as Interim Application stand disposed of

¶33

accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶34

 [ R. I. CHAGLA J. ]

¶35

[ K. K. TATED J. ]

¶36

3 of 3

Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dongarsingh Madhukar Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Deepak Anant Sawant Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 11 Others

Shri. Madhusudan Gajanan Sutar (Mestry) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Madhusudan Gajanan Sutar (Mestry) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Manohar Hiru Porte Son of Shri. Hiru Porte Vs the Assistant General Manager Bank of India and Ors.

Sunil Shankar Jadhav Vs the Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sanjay Suresh Adesara Vs Nashik Municipal Corp. Thru Commissioner and Ors.