Remanded

Pradip Tulshiram Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC15 Feb 2022WP/2179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting a caste certificate validation. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without giving notice to the petitioner, violating natural justice, and set aside the order for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; parties relegated before Committee to hear petitioner on 01.03.2022 and decide afresh.

Pradip Tulshiram Sonawane Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

2179.22WP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

939 WRIT PETITION NO.2179 OF 2022

¶5

PRADIP TULSHIRAM SONAWANE
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.Mayur Subhedar
h/f.Mr.C.V.Dharurkar
AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.P.Tiwari

¶8

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

¶9

 DATE : 15.02.2022

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1]The petitioner had obtained caste certificate
from the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon. The proposal was
submitted for validation of the said certificate. The Scrutiny
Committee under the impugned order held that the
petitioner’s permanent place of residence is at Bhusawal,
Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon and as such certificate
issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon is without
jurisdiction.

¶12

2]Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was not heard before the impugned order was

¶13

¶14

2179.22WP

¶15

passed. The original place of residence as on the date of the
presidential notification was Bholane, Taluka and District
Jalgaon. As such certificate was issued by the Competent
Authority.

¶16

3]Learned AGP for the respondent-State submits
that considering the information given by the petitioner in
Form-E, it is clear that the petitioner’s original place of
residence is Bhusawal, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.
The Committee has not committed any illegality in passing
the impugned order.

¶17

4]When an order adverse to the interest of any
party is to be passed the minimum requirement of
adherence to the principles of natural justice is necessary.

¶18

5]As averred by the petitioner, the impugned
order is passed without notice to the petitioner. We set
aside the impugned order on the ground of non adherence
to the principles of natural justice.

¶19

6]The parties are relegated before the Committee.
The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on
01.03.2022. The Committee shall hear the petitioner and
take decision afresh with regard to the competency of the
authority issuing caste certificate. Pursuant to the said
decision, further steps be undertaken.

¶20

¶21

2179.22WP

¶22

7]Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

[S.G.DIGE, J.]

¶24

 [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶25

DDC

Pradip Tulshiram Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Tulshiram Sonawane v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Jeevankumar Shridhar Shirsath Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lokjagar Foundation Thr Its President Pandharinath Shankarrao Sable Vs Debashish Chakrabrty and Others

Kalpanabai Vasant Jadhav (Patil) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Queens College of Education for Women through Its Secretary Shaikh Rafiq Ahemad Maksud Ahemad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Acharya Kulam Foundation Avhane Thr Its President Secretary Visal Tryambak Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayyad Abdulla Yasin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others