Allowed

Ramesh Dasrao Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry and Anohter

Bombay HC13 Jul 2023WP/2468/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed four writ petitions challenging the rejection of Scheduled Tribe (Thakur) certificate claims. Relying on prior decisions allowing relatives in a common order, the Court quashed the rejection order, directed issuance of conditional validity certificates by a specific date, and ordered cooperation for reopened matters.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue conditional Scheduled Tribe validity certificates by 19 July 2023.

Ramesh Dasrao Shinde Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 wp 2469.21

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2469 OF 2021

¶4

Ashwini d/o Naresh Shinde, Age – 28 years, Occ. Student, R/o A/p Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. Through its Secretary.

¶7

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary. .. Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2468 OF 2021

¶9

Ramesh S/o Dasrao Shinde, Age – 48 years, Occ. Service, R/o A/p Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. Through its Secretary.

¶13

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,

¶14

	2 wp 2469.21 Through its Member Secretary.
3.	The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. .. Respondents
	WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2021
	Rohini d/o Ramesh Shinde, Age – 21 years, Occ. Student, R/o A/p Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. Through its Secretary.
2.	The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary. .. Respondents
	WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2471 OF 2021
	Gajanan s/o Dasrao Shinde, Age – 44 years, Occ. Service, R/o A/p Pethwadaj, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner
	Versus
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. Through its Secretary.

¶15

3 wp 2469.21

¶16

The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary.

¶17

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. .. Respondents

¶18

Shri Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters.

¶19

Shri S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all matters.

¶20

Shri S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 in W. P. No. 2468 of 2021 and W. P. No. 2471 of 2021

¶21

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 13 JULY 2023.

¶22

FINAL ORDER :

¶23

. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader finally in all four matters.

¶24

The petitioners are challenging the order passed by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee in proceedings under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, DeNotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, whereby, by a common judgment and order, their claims as belonging to ‘Thakur’ (Scheduled Tribe) have been turned down.

¶25

It transpires that in fact it was a common order in respect

¶26

4 wp 2469.21

¶27

of these four petitioners and one Gaurav Gajanan Shinde, Vijay Naresh Shinde and Devidas Ramesh Shinde. In view of the then exigencies being demonstrated, by a common order petitions of Gaurav Gajanan Shinde and Devidas Ramesh Shinde bearing Writ Petition No. 2465 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2021 were decided by this Court on 03 December 2021, whereas writ petition of Vijay Naresh Shinde bearing Writ Petition No. 2466 of 2021 was decided on 08 December 2021.

¶28

The very fact that all these claims of seven individuals were considered together and decided by common order depicts that there was no dispute as far as they being blood relatives inter se from paternal side. Common material and evidence was discussed and the order was passed.

¶29

We emphasize aforesaid mentioned fact for the simple reason that this Court was called upon to and has considered merits of the self same common order and has allowed writ petitions of Gaurav Gajanan Shinde, Vijay Naresh Shinde and Devidas Ramesh Shinde. We cannot take a different view. In fact, since it is a common order which was under challenge in earlier three writ petitions there cannot be a separate judgment by another coordinate bench in respect of few of these individuals namely the petitioners herein. The reasons given in the orders passed by this Court in the matters of Gaurav Gajanan Shinde and Devidas Ramesh Shinde as also Vijay Naresh Shinde will bind us. We need not therefore go into the other aspects. As the

¶30

5 wp 2469.21

¶31

Court has granted conditional validity certificates to Gaurav, Vijay and Devidas, even these petitioners would be entitled to the same relief obviously conditionally, depending upon the ultimate decision in the matters to be reopened by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of validity holders.

¶32

The writ petitions are allowed partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside qua even these four petitioners. The respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall now issue validity certificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Thakur’ (Scheduled Tribe) by 19 July 2023. Such validity certificates would be subject to the ultimate decision in the matters to be reopened by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. The petitioners and their blood relatives shall cooperate in early decision in the reopened matters. The writ petitions are disposed of.

¶33

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ]

¶34

[ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]

¶35

bsb/July 23

Ramesh Dasrao Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry and Anohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Dasrao Shinde v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry and Anohter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansi Ramdas Pilangwad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rashmi Sunil Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nisha Venkatrao Gawarwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suryadev Babruwahan Dudhewad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashwini Naresh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Nother

Gajanan Dasrao Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretry and Others