Partly allowed

Om Linguram Akulwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Tis Secretary and Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2024WP/13452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the invalidation of his Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe certificate. Court quashed the order, directing the Committee to issue a fresh certificate subject to matters being reopened, relying on a sister's identical case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; Committee directed to issue Mannervarlu ST certificate subject to reopened matters.

Om Linguram Akulwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Tis… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

917.WP.13452.24.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:28908-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.13452 OF 2024

¶5

OM LINGURAM AKULWAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MANTRALAYA MUMBAI – 400 001

¶8

SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE,

¶9

KINWAT, HEAD-QUARTRE AT CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJI NAGAR THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶10

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DIVISION NAGPUR, DIST. NAGPUR THROUGH ITS CHIEF ENGINEER

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Phatale Sagar S AGP for Respondents: Ms. P.J. Bharad

¶12

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 10.12.2024

¶14

PER COURT:

¶15

The petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation passed by respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, thereby refusing to validate his ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificate.

¶16

We have heard both the sides. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner’s sister Akanksha had faced an invalidation and in Writ Petition No.7465/2018, by the order dated 23.07.2018 (Principal Seat), her invalidation was set aside and she was held entitled to have a certificate

¶17

1/2

¶18

917.WP.13452.24.odt

¶19

of validity subject to the final outcome of the matters which the Committee had decided to reopen.

¶20

Incidentally, the petitioner was allowed to adopt the reply filed by Akanksha to the vigilance inquiry report and thereafter the Committee has passed the impugned order, meaning thereby that the evidence that was available before the Scrutiny Committee in the matter of Akanksha which was scrutinized by this Court in her writ petition is the same even in the matter of the petitioner. This would obviate any further inquiry or scrutiny into the same set of evidence.

¶21

In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed partly.

¶22

The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside.

¶23

The Committee shall immediately issue a certificate of validity to the petitioner of ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe which shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee has decided to reopen.

¶24

The petitioner shall not be entitled claim equities.

¶25

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶26

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶27

habeeb/

¶28

2/2

Om Linguram Akulwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Tis Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Linguram Akulwar v. the State of Maharashtra through Tis Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asmita Santosh Nirmal Alias Asmita Dattarao Kale Vs the Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others

Latabai Ravindra Jogdande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretory and Others

Chandrahas Babasaheb Sable Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Gorakshnath Manjapabu More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Pandurang Uttam Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Nirmalabai Dhanraj Chowdhari and Others Vs the Regional Asst Commissioner Sugar and Others