Partly allowed

Balasaheb Narayan Perke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Nov 2024WP/4342/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a common Scrutiny Committee order invalidating their tribe claims. Following an earlier common judgment dated 10/10/2023 that partly allowed writ petitions by others covered by the same order, this Court partly allowed these petitions, quashed the impugned order qua petitioners, and directed issuance of tribe validity certificates.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14/02/2021 quashed and set aside qua petitioners; Committee directed to issue Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe validity certificates, subject to reopened proceedings; no equities.

Balasaheb Narayan Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:28145-DB

¶2

4342.21wp etc

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

942 WRIT PETITION NO. 4342 OF 2021

¶6

Balasaheb Narayan Perke, Age: 28 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Manjram, Tq. Naigaon Kh., Dist. Nanded At present Panchayat Samiti, Vani, Tq. Vani, Dist. Yavatmal ….PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, Tq. and Dist. Yavatmal

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Vani, Tq. Vani, Dist. Yavatmal ….RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State Mr D. K. Rajput, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4

4342.21wp etc

(2)

AND

943 WRIT PETITION NO. 4344 OF 2021

¶17

Yogesh Ramesh Perke, Age: 29 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Manjram, Tq. Naigaon Kh., Dist. Nanded At present – Sai Ram Row House No.2, Jatra Nandur Link Road, Adgaon Shivar, Vrindavan Nagar, Nasik, Tq. and Dist. Nasik Pin 422003 ….PETITIONER

¶18

VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Nasik Zone, Nasik Tq. and Dist. Nasik 4. The Superintendent Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, Nasik, Tq. and Dist. Nasik 5. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company,

¶19

4342.21wp etc

¶20

(3)

¶21

Nasik Urban-2, Nasik Road, Tq. and Dist. Nasik ….RESPONDENTS

¶22

Mr Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State Mr A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5

¶23

AND

¶24

943 WRIT PETITION NO. 4336 OF 2021

¶25

Shailaja d/o Jaywantrao Perke @ Shailaja Shankarrao Pupalwar, Age: 51 years, Occu: Service, R/o. Manjram, Tq. Naigaon Kh., Dist. Nanded At present House No.11, Sunrise, Apartment, Kailash Nagar, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded

¶26

….PETITIONER

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶29

Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad

¶30

Pujya Sane Guruji Primary School, Gandhinagar, Biloli, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded, Through its Headmaster ….RESPONDENTS

¶31

Mr Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner Mr R. S. Wani, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State

¶32

4342.21wp etc

¶33

(4)

¶34

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL

¶35

AND

¶36

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

¶37

DATE : 28th November, 2024

¶38

JUDGMENT (PER : Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

¶39

Writ Petition No.4336/2021 was not on board. By

¶40

consent of the respective parties, the same is taken on board.

¶41

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

¶42

by consent of the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

¶43

By these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging

¶44

the order dated 14/02/2021, passed by respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating their tribe claims.

¶45

The impugned order is a common order in the matter of ten persons including the petitioners herein.

¶46

The same impugned order was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.4343/2021, filed by Anmol Jayprakash Perke; Writ Petition No.4825/2021, filed by Gaurav Ratnakar Perke and Writ Petition No.4910/2021, filed by Apurva

¶47

(5)

¶48

4342.21wp etc

¶49

Ratnakar Perke. By a common judgment and order dated 10/10/2023, these three writ petitions were decided by this Court and after elaborate reasoning, the same were partly allowed. Since the impugned order was subject matter of scrutiny in those three writ petitions, in view of the judgment dated 10/10/2023, the instant writ petition also will have to be allowed to the extent of the present petitioners. Hence, the following order:-

¶50

(a) All these writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶51

(b) The impugned order dated 14/02/2021 to the extent of the present petitioners is quashed and set aside.

¶52

(c) Respondent/Scrutiny Committee is directed to immediately issue tribe validity certificates to these petitioners as belonging to the ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe under the prescribed format, without adding anything. (d) These validity certificates shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the Committee has decided to reopen.

¶53

(e) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any equities.

¶54

4342.21wp etc

¶55

(6)

¶56

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.

¶57

No order as to costs.

¶58

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

¶59

sjk

Balasaheb Narayan Perke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Narayan Perke 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kartiki Mahesh Bhamare U/G Father Viz. Mahesh Bhatusing Bhamare Vs the State of Maharashtra Department of Tribal Development Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Nilanjay Madhavrao Yadpalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Nilesh Madhavrao Yadpalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sunil Bhaurao Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shailaja Jaywantrao Perke Alias Shailaja Shankarrao Pupalwar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Yogesh Ramesh Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others