Partly allowed

Sagar Gangayya Annamwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Dec 2024WP/1607/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench considered two writ petitions and a common challenge by a daughter against the cancellation of 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe certificates. The court allowed the petitions partly, quashing the impugned order and directing the committee to issue validity certificates to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; committee directed to issue validity certificates coterminus with validity of reopened blood relatives.

Sagar Gangayya Annamwar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

906 & 919.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:29396-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

906 WRIT PETITION NO. 1607 OF 2021

¶5

SAGAR GANGAYYA ANNAMWAR

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Ms. V. N. Patil Jadhav

¶9

AND

¶10

919 WRIT PETITION NO.1590 OF 2021

¶11

GANGAYYA DEVANNA ANNAMWAR HTR POWER FO ATTORNEY HOLDER SAGAR GANGAYYA ANNAMWAR VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Ms. V. N. Patil Jadhav

¶14

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , JJ. DATE : 14.12.2024

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

Petitioners are father and son and challenging a common

¶17

order passed by respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001, whereby, their ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates, instead of validating those have been confiscated and cancelled.

¶18

We have heard both the sides.

¶19

1/2

¶20

906 & 919.odt

¶21

The impugned order is a common order in the matter of these two petitioners and petitioner Gangayya’s daughter Ashwini.

¶22

Ashwini Gangayya Annamwar challenged the selfsame judgment and order in Writ Petition No.4569 of 2021. By the order dated 17.10.2023, for the reasons recorded therein, she was held entitled to have a certificate of validity, which was made co-terminus with the validity of the blood relatives which the committee has decided to reopen.

¶23

Since it is a common order, these writ petitions are also allowed partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside even to the extent of the petitioners.

¶24

The committee shall immediately issue certificates of validity to both the petitioners of ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe which shall be coterminus with the validity of the individuals which the committee has decided to reopen.

¶25

The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.

¶26

( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR J.)

¶27

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶28

jagdish/

¶29

2/2

Sagar Gangayya Annamwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Gangayya Annamwar v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Dyandev Rambhau Naval and Others Vs the Secretary Public Health Department Mumbai and Others

Veerbhadra Sidramapppa Birajdar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Secretary, Law and Judiciary Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai (Delated) and Ors.

Shrikant Chandrakant Pathak and Others Vs the Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai and Others

Gangayya Devanna Annamwar Htr Power Fo Attorney Holder Sagar Gangayya Annamwar Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Ravindra Ganpat Baviskar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jaherkhan Sharifkhan Pathan Deceased through His Lrs Smt Jahanara Jaherkhan Pathan Vs the Income Tax Officer and Another