Allowed

Gulab Yeshwant Nikumbh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC15 Oct 2024WP/5720/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the Committee to accept the petitioner's photocopy of a 2003 Scheduled Tribe Certificate for verification within one week to validate his proposal, rejecting the Committee's demand for a fresh certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Committee to accept the petitioner's photocopy of the 2003 caste certificate for verification within one week and decide the proposal within six months of document production.

Gulab Yeshwant Nikumbh Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:25293-DB

¶2

wp-5720.24

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

925 WRIT PETITION NO. 5720 OF 2024

¶7

GULAB YESHWANT NIKUMBH VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶9

Mr. Kalyan V. Patil Advocate h/f. Mr. S.R. Barlinge Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. R.P. Gour, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 15^th OCTOBER, 2024

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

Learned AGP, in view of the order passed by this Court on 19^th June 2024, submits the written communication by Joint Director and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule stating that the record in respect of proposal of the petitioner is not traceable. They have taken note of the statements in the petition that the petitioner had approached the then caste scrutiny committee, Nashik in 2003 which had jurisdiction for validation, however, the said committee is then divided into three Districts in 2007 i.e.

¶15

wp-5720.24

¶16

¶17

Nandurbar, Dhule and Jalgaon. The petitioner’s claim was from Nandurbar and therefore, it was transferred to Nandurbar Committee. However, on 9^th May 2022 a separate new committee has been appointed for Dhule as well as Nandurbar, at Dhule. This had led to the loss of record. There is a request by the committee that if record is made available by the petitioner then they may consider the said record and decide the proposal.

¶18

Learned Advocate Mr. Kalyan holding for learned Advocate Mr. Barlinge for petitioner submits that the petitioner would supply the record which is available with him, to the Committee.

¶19

Though it has been stated in the recent communication dated 15^th October 2024 that in view of the suggestion by the committee that the applicant should approach the concerned authority and get a new caste certificate which they will consider for validation, we do not approve the same. When the petitioner had made the application in 2003 and it was kept pending by different Committees, it does not lie in the mouth of the present committee to seek direction against the petitioner that he should approach the concerned authority and get a fresh caste certificate. The petitioner to provide all the documents to the Committee within one week. We clarify, in view of the statement

¶20

wp-5720.24

¶21

¶22

made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that the original caste certificate was submitted along with the proposal in 2003, the petitioner is having only the photo copy of the same; the Committee to accept the photo copy of the said certificate and may get verification of the same from the concerned authority, as to whether it was issued in 2003 or not.

¶23

After the documents are produced by the petitioner before the Committee, the Committee to decide the said proposal within a period of six months from the date of production of documents.

¶24

We dispose of the Writ Petition with the above directions.

¶25

[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR] [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

asb/OCT24

Gulab Yeshwant Nikumbh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Yeshwant Nikumbh v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

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

Om Kakasaheb Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dr. Punjaram @ Pankaj Haribhau Bhojane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dashrath Kerapa Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Another

Akkabai Hasan Tadavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Pandit Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation Thr Is Commissioner Vs Gangabai Narshing Mudiraj and Ors.