Partly allowed

Ganesh S/O. Ramdas Bansod @ Bansode v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Sept 2022WP/1611/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by a Verification Committee that invalidated a petitioner's Tribe certificate without hearing him after receiving an adverse report from a Vigilance Cell, directing a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31/7/2013 quashed. Vigilance report to be shared; petitioner to reply; Committee to hear petitioner and pass order within four weeks.

Ganesh S/O. Ramdas Bansod @ Bansode Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

0609wp1611.21

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1611 OF 2021

¶5

Ganesh s/o Ramdas Bansod @ Bansode, a/a 45 years, occupation : service, permanent r/o Chikhali, Taluq Risod, District Washim.

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

Versus -

¶8

1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶9

1. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Sana Building, Chaprashi Pura, Amravati, Taluq and District Amravati, through its Secretary.

¶10

1. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Chikhali, Taluq Risod, District Washim, through its President.

¶11

1. Swami Vivekanand Vidyalaya, Vyad, Taluq Risod, District Washim, through its Head Master. ... Respondents

¶12

Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner.

¶13

Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶14

Shri A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶15

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. AND

¶16

0609wp1611.21

¶17

¶18

NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2022

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

The petitioner claims to be holding a tribe certificate as belonging to “Thakur” (Scheduled Tribe). The same was referred for verification to the respondent Committee. The respondent Committee vide impugned order dated 31/7/2013 invalidated the same on the ground that same was not issued by the competent Authority.

¶21

The contention of Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the impugned order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after report was received from the Vigilance Cell attached to the respondent Committee.

¶22

The aforesaid submission made by Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is not controverted.

¶23

In the aforesaid background, it has to be inferred that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Since the impugned order has adverse civil consequences over the right of the petitioner, particularly when he has secured employment against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, least that was expected from the respondent Committee was to hear the

¶24

0609wp1611.21

¶25

¶26

petitioner after receipt of the Vigilance Cell’s report, which was adverse to the interest of the petitioner.

¶27

In the result, the impugned order dated 31/7/2013 passed by the respondent Committee is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶28

Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 and 2, assures that the Vigilance Cell’s report shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today provided the petitioner attends the Office of the respondent Committee.

¶29

The petitioner undertakes to submit his reply to the Vigilance Cell’s report within a period of six weeks after receipt of the same.

¶30

We expect the respondent Committee to hear the petitioner after submission of his explanation to the Vigilance Cell’s report and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶31

The petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶32

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

khj

0609wp1611.21

Digitally Signed By:KAMAL HUNDRAJ JESWANI Signing Date:07.09.2022 17:25

Ganesh S/O. Ramdas Bansod @ Bansode v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh S/O. Ramdas Bansod @ Bansode v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Dept., Mumbai 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

Vinayak Sham Shete Vs Deputy Director / Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and Another

Parag Govind Joshi Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Others

Pradip Dadarao Budhe Vs the Dy. General Manager-Cum-Appellate Authority, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi and Ors.

Pandurang S/O Dadaji Virulkar Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zp, Wardha and Others

Ku. Usha Ramchandra Kumbhare (Mrs. Usha Pradeep Raut) Vs State of Maha., Thr. Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Others

Shriram Housing Finance Limited, Nagpur Thr. Its Authorized Officer Vs the Collector / District Magistrate, Amravati