Disposed

Sau. Shashikala W/O. Keshav Dhakite v. the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Sect. Woman and Child Devp. Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024WP/2756/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a show cause notice threatening prosecution for furnishing false caste/tribe information, issued on the basis of a quashed Scrutiny Committee order whose fresh replacement contained no prosecution direction. The Court disposed of the petition, permitting the petitioner to file a reply and reserving her rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sau. Shashikala W/O. Keshav Dhakite Vs the State of Maha… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:420-DB

¶2

22-WP-2756-2016.odt 1

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2756 of 2016

¶5

Sau. Shashikala w/o Keshav Dhakite

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, Mumbai and others.

¶8

Shri S. K. Pardhy, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Amit Madiwale, AGP for respondents.

¶9

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE :- 10^th JANUARY 2024.

¶10

P. C.

¶11

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 30^th April, 2016 issued by the respondent no.2Commissioner, Woman and Child Development, M.S., Pune, whereby the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why she should not be prosecuted for furnishing false information in regard to her caste/tribe.

¶12

It appears that by the order dated 18^th July, 2013 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the caste claim of the petitioner as that of belonging to ‘Halba’ Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected with further direction to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, approached this Court by filing petition being Writ Petition No.5010 of 2023 which was partly allowed vide order dated 28^th October, 2013. As the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 18^th July, 2013 came to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28^th October, 2013 referred above, fresh order dated 21^st November, 2013 came to be passed by the Scrutiny Committee, after hearing the petitioner, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner came to be negated. However, when the fresh order was passed by the Committee on 21^st November, 2013, there was no direction about initiation of prosecution against the petitioner.

¶15

22-WP-2756-2016.odt 2

¶16

It appears that the petitioner stood superannuated. On the basis of the order dated 18^th July, 2013 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the respondent-Employer claims to be an authority to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioner and accordingly issued a show cause notice dated 30^th April, 2016 to the petitioner.

¶17

The fact remains that the petitioner has approached this Court against the show cause notice dated 30^th April, 2016. Her contention is that the order to initiate prosecution passed by the respondentScrutiny Committee on 18^th July, 2013 was set aside by this Court vide order dated 28^th October, 2013 and a fresh order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 21^st November, 2013 does not show any cause for initiation of criminal prosecution against her is sought to be relied upon by the petitioner for the purpose of questioning the show cause notice.

¶18

In the aforesaid background, we are of the view that it is open for the petitioner to bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the respondent-employer. We however expect that the respondentemployer to be sensitive to the aforesaid fact of the absence of any direction in the fresh order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 21^st November, 2013 about initiation of prosecution against the petitioner.

¶19

Keeping such right reserved in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner to file her reply to the show cause notice and with further observation that the respondent-Employer shall be sensitive to the aforesaid fact, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition.

¶20

With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

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

¶22

Andurkar.

Sau. Shashikala W/O. Keshav Dhakite v. the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Sect. Woman and Child Devp. Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sau. Shashikala W/O. Keshav Dhakite v. the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Sect. Woman and Child Devp. Dept., Mumbai 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

Nidhi Sakshi Park Apartment, through Its Secretary Vs the Collector Amravati

Union of India through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur and Others Vs Gudaru Yethi Rajulu and Others

Shri Mangesh S/O Ashokrao Mallelwar Vs State of Mahrashtra, in the Ministry of Revenue and Forest, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 2

Kashiram S/O Maroti Awate Vs Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer.

Laxman Mahadu Pende Vs Zilla Parishad, Washim, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Washim

Ambesh Ramdulare Shrivastav vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another