Disposed

Sudam Laxman Rode v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC3 Dec 2024WP/2326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning a caste scrutiny committee's one-page validation order passed after an election, with two members filing affidavits apologising for what they called a mistake. The Court held the lapse to be sheer gross negligence rather than a mistake, refused to accept the apology, and directed the order be sent to the Chief Secretary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sudam Laxman Rode Vs the State of Maharashtra through the… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 908-WP-2326-2024.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

908 WRIT PETITION NO. 2326 OF 2024

¶4

SUDAM LAXMAN RODE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. Latange Vijay Prabhakarrao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Rchir S. Wani, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. A. D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent No.9.

¶7

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL

¶8

¶9

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 18^th December, 2024

¶11

Per Court :-

¶12

Pursuant to the earlier orders, remaining two

¶13

members of the scrutiny committee Mr. Vikas Pansare and Mr. Bhagwat Ukhaji Khare have tendered affidavits, inter

¶14

alia mentioning that it was a mistake and tendering an apology, one of whom now stands superannuated.

¶15

Considering the issue which we had expressly recked

¶16

up in our initial order dated 3^rd December 2024, there cannot be any justification for passing such an order. Even it

¶17

2 908-WP-2326-2024.odt

¶18

cannot be brushed aside as a mistake. Though these affidavits, inter alia, mention that it is due to lack of training that the mistake had occurred, it is more surprising if one bears in mind the mistake which we have pointed out. It is a sheer negligence on the part of the members of the committee in signing an order of this kind which is one page order and even while signing they could have easily noticed the details of documents which were filled in by hand. We are of the firm view that it is not a mistake, but a sheer gross negligence.

¶19

We are emboldened to state that even the common sense did not prevail over the committee to comprehend that since the proposal for validation of the claim had to be taken up pursuant to the election, there would be a contesting candidate questioning the validity to be granted. Still, they have passed the one page order, wherein only portion that was filled in, as we have indicated in the first order, was merely scribbling.

¶20

In view of such peculiar circumstances, we are not

¶21

even inclined to accept the apology. Let this remain on the

908-WP-2326-2024.odt

record forever.

Copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶26

( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

¶27

AGNarwade

Sudam Laxman Rode v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sudam Laxman Rode v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmeshwar Laxman Gadwe Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Rakesh Dilip Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Jakir Husen Shekh Akhater Mehtar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Prabhakar Sambhaji Karhale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Abhilash Chandrakant Budhware Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Santosh Vasant Rasane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others