Partly allowed

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2023WP/1613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Bharat Desai High Court writ petition challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioner's Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe caste claim. The Court noted the petitioner's repeated absences despite six summons but granted a conditional stay, quashing the order subject to the petitioner depositing costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is quashed subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 50,000 as costs by 6th March 2023 and appearing before the Committee by 6th April 2023.

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

903.1613.23-wp.docx

¶2

Digitally signed by BASAVRAJ BASAVRAJ GURAPPA GURAPPA PATIL PATIL Date: 2023.02.09 14:37:59 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1613 OF 2023

¶5

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane

¶6

….. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶9

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for the State

¶10

CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶11

DATED : FEBRUARY 8, 2023

¶12

P.C.

¶13

The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.

¶14

Amongst other submissions, one of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is exparte order. The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was hospitalized, as such, could not appear and without opportunity of hearing, the matter has been decided.

¶15

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, say to the Vigilance Report was filed, however, opportunity of hearing was not properly granted.

1/3

Basavraj

903.1613.23-wp.docx

The learned AGP submits that ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner. The Petitioner remained absent.

¶20

Perusal of the order transpires that six times, the Petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Committee but the Petitioner remained absent. Medical Certificate is produced to suggest that he was advised bed rest for two weeks. The same is from 3^rd September 2022. The order of the Committee is dated 16^th November 2022. The Petitioner ought to have been diligent in attending the matter before the Committee.

¶21

Considering that the matter pertains to the social status of the Petitioner, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner also deserves to be mulct with cost.

¶22

7. In the result, we pass the following order:

¶23

a. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside on condition that the Petitioner deposits cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) on or before 6^th March 2023 with the Committee

¶24

b. Deposit of cost is a condition precedent.

¶25

c. If the cost is not deposited as directed above, the judgment of the Committee shall stand upheld.

2/3

Basavraj

903.1613.23-wp.docx

d. If the cost is deposited as directed above, then the Committee shall decide the proceedings after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner, preferably within three months from the date of appearance of the Petitioner.

¶30

e. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 6^th April 2023. The Petitioner shall not seek further adjournment in the matter before the Committee

¶31

f. As the matter is still pending with the Committee, the employer shall not take adverse action against the Petitioner only on the ground that the caste claim of the Petitioner is invalidated.

¶32

g. The employer may take further action as per the judgment delivered by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶33

h. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶34

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)

¶35

(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶36

3/3

¶37

Basavraj

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Vishnupant Sonawane v. State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

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

Jaspal Singh Kohli Vs Punjab and Sind Bank through the Chairman and 5 Ors.

Babulal Chandulal Dave Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary to the Ministry of Envi and Climate Change and Ors.

Bhagwansing Gulabsingh Rajput Vs Maha Mumbai Metro Operation Corporation Limited and Anr.

Yogesh Prafulla Kugaonkar and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ghorpade Namdeo Nana and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Sangita Dinesh Nakhawa Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary General Administration Dept and Anr.