Partly allowed

Vaishali W/O Samir Dafade v. the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC20 Aug 2024WP/1571/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against order invalidating caste certificate and initiating proceedings under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act. Petitioner resigned from post obtained via fake ST claim and joined open category employment. Court partly allowed petition, quashing directions for action under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act on humanitarian grounds.

What did the court decide?

Quash and set aside directions for initiation of action under Sections 10(1)(2) and 11(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000.

Vaishali W/O Samir Dafade Vs the Principal Secretary, Law… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 7wp1571.2018..odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:9310-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2018

¶5

(Vaishali w/o Samir Dafade Vs. The Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.

¶9

Ms. N.P. Mehta, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1,3 and 5.

¶10

Mr. L.S. Borkar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for respondent No. 4.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &

¶12

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATED : 20-08 -2024

¶13

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that except the directions issued in the impugned order of action under the provisions of Sections 10(1)(2) and 11(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (“the Act”, for short), the petitioner is accepting the order of invalidation.

¶14

Mr. Patil submits that the petitioner has given up her employment, which she had obtained on the basis of the claim of belonging to “Halba” (Scheduled Tribe) and has secured new employment from 21.10.2008 in Open Category with some other employer.

¶15

Since the petitioner has given up her claim as against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate in the employment prior to the date of passing of the

¶16

2 7wp1571.2018..odt

¶17

impugned order, we deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the directions to the extent of action to be initiated against the petitioner under Sections 10(1)(2) and 11(1) (2) of the Act.

¶18

The petition stands partly allowed in the above terms.

¶19

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶20

Belkhede

Vaishali W/O Samir Dafade v. the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali W/O Samir Dafade v. the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept, Mumbai and Others

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

Young Revolution Panther, Tumsar Thr. Secretary, Dr. Sacchidanand Hiraman Fulekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Ors.

Purushottam Krushnarao Dhote Vs Directorate of Agriculture (v.P) Commissionerate of Agriculture, State of Mah., Pune and Others

Bhagwan S/O Kondu Zine and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Indira Masemari Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Kapsi (Juni), Akola Thr. President Maroti T. Bilewar Vs State of Maha. Thr. Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, Mumbai and Others

Sau. Reshma Mangesh Bhise Vs the Collector, Amravati and Others

Suresh Wasudeorao Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others