Remanded

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane v. District Collector and Another

Bombay HC5 Jan 2022WP/185/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the invalidation of the petitioner's caste claim. The petitioner sought an opportunity to prove relationship with validity holders to substantiate his claim. The High Court granted a limited opportunity to the petitioner to establish relationship before the Committee.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; parties relegated before the Committee to decide the claim on merits; petitioner to appear and place documents proving relationship.

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane Vs District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

969-WP-185-22.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

969 WRIT PETITION NO.185 OF 2022

¶5

SANJEEV ASARAM SULANE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondents : Mr. A.R. Kale Advocate for Caveator original complainant : Mr. M. K. Bhosale

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 5^th JANUARY, 2022

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not get proper opportunity to establish the relationship with the validity holders relied upon by the petitioner. The notice was not issued by the Committee calling for explanation as required under the Act and Rules. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has filed the affidavits of the validity holders wherein they have specifically accepted the relationship of the petitioner with them.

¶13

Earlier the validity was granted to the petitioner. The said validity was granted on the basis of validity issued to the paternal relatives of the petitioner. Now, while invalidating the claim of the petitioner, the reason is given that relationship is not proved. The petitioner be given one more opportunity to prove the relationship.

¶14

Mr. Bhosle, learned counsel for original complainant submits that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed say to the vigilance report. The vigilance report opined that petitioner could not prove relationship with those persons, to whom the validities

¶15

¶16

969-WP-185-22.odt

¶17

are issued. In view of that, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted any further opportunity. The Committee has considered the relevant documents placed by the petitioner, the vigilance report and rightly arrived at the conclusion while invalidating the claim of the petitioner.

¶18

We have heard the learned AGP.

¶19

The caste claim of the petitioner Rajput Bhamta VJ has been invalidated.

¶20

Limited prayer made before us is that the petitioner may be given opportunity to prove the relationship. The matter pertains to social status. The petitioner is relying upon the validity certificates issued to that persons to whom the petitioner claims to be his relatives. Naturally it is for the petitioner to establish relationship with those persons. The burden lies upon the petitioner to establish the relationship.

¶21

Considering the above, we are inclined to grant opportunity to the petitioner to establish the relationship with the persons whom the petitioner claims to be his relatives. In view of that, we pass the following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The impugned order is set aside.

¶24

(ii) The parties are relegated before the Committee.

¶25

(iii) The parties shall appear before the Committee on 07-01-2022.

¶26

(iv) The petitioner may place on record such documents as petitioner may deem fit to prove the relationship. Thereafter, the Committee may take

¶27

¶28

969-WP-185-22.odt

¶29

decision upon the claim of the petitioner on its merits, in accordance with law and policy and if it is possible for the Committee the same shall be decided before 16^th January, 2022.

¶30

(v) It is made clear that we have not opined on merits of the matter.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶32

( S.G. DIGE ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶33

mtk

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane v. District Collector and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Asaram Sulane v. District Collector and Another

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

Pandurang Sambhaji Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vilas Kantappa Katkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Marathwada Division Library Association, Aurangabad. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Maniknagar through Its Labour Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Anil Prabhakar Aundhekar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sudhakar Raosaheb Bane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others