Partly allowed

Sagar Subhash Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC11 Oct 2023WP/12706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his Koli Malhar certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the writ petition partly, quashing the impugned order and directing the Committee to conduct a fresh scrutiny permitting the petitioner to produce his grandfather's school record and decide the matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to decide the petitioner's proposal afresh within six months permitting him to produce relevant documents.

Sagar Subhash Gavali Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

934 WRIT PETITION NO. 12706 OF 2023

¶4

SAGAR SUBHASH GAVALI

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V. AGP for Respondents : Mr. A.A. Jagatkar

¶8

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 11 OCTOBER 2023

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, confiscating and cancelling his ‘Koli Malhar’ scheduled tribe certificate.

¶11

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, irrespective of the reasoning assigned by the Committee in impugned order, since it is a matter of social status, the petitioner could trace a school record of his grandfather which is of 12 March 1951, wherein, in the school record his caste was recorded as ‘Koli Malhar’. He submits that the petitioner could not produce it either during vigilance inquiry or even before the Committee and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to go before the Committee which can take a fresh decision and, if necessary, by resorting to vigilance enquiry to verify the genuineness of the school record of petitioner’s grandfather of ‘Koli Malhar’.

¶12

3. Learned AGP opposes the request.

¶13

It does appear that the petitioner has not been enable to produce the document in the form of copy of the school register

¶14

which is now produced at exhibit ‘F’ which, prima facie , shows that petitioner’s grandfather was admitted in that school on 12 March 1951. Since the Committee in the impugned order has not pointed out any contrary entry of the period prior to 12 March 1951, this school record would be certainly relevant and would carry greater probative value, if it is found to be genuine.

¶15

Considering the aforementioned aspect, it is imperative that the matter is relegated back to the Scrutiny Committee to undertake a fresh scrutiny and pass a fresh order permitting the petitioner to produce the documents to substantiate his claim.

¶16

The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the petitioner’s proposal afresh by permitting him to produce the copy of the school record of his grandfather (exhibit ‘F’) and any other document which he may produce and shall take fresh decision, if necessary, by resorting to further vigilance enquiry.

¶17

The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 23 October 2023, and the Committee shall thereafter, decide his proposal as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months, thereafter.

¶18

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]

¶19

spc/

Sagar Subhash Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Subhash Gavali v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary 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

Anmol Jayprakash Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gaurav Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Apurva Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pranav Kishor Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Ahinsa Private Industrial Training Institute Dondaicha through Its Principal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Pallavi Chandrayya Aitwar through Power of Attorney Holder Chandrayya Ramkishtu Aitwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another