wp7817.17.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7817/2017
PETITIONER : Apurva d/o. Sunil Khare,
Aged about 17 years, Occ. Student.
through her natural guardian father
Shri Sunil s/o Pralhad Khare, Aged about 46 years,
Occupation : Service, R/o. E-1, Everest Block No.715,
Kalyan (West), Mumbai.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanja, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3662/2017 PETITIONERS : 1. Om s/o Kishor Pawar aged about 13 yrs., Occ. Student.
2. Yash s/o Kishor Pawar Aged about 09 yrs., Occ. Student. Both r/o Bhatkuli, Distt. Amravati. Petitioners No.1 & 2 being minors represented by their natural guardian father Shri Kishor Rameshchandra Pawar.
...VERSUS...
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 :::
wp7817.17.odt 2 RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tiwsa Bhatkuli, Distt. Amravati. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3666/2017 PETITIONERS : 1. Ramrao s/o Uttam More Aged about 35 yrs., Occ. Labour.
2. Gayatri d/o Ramrao More Aged about 8 yrs., Occ. Student.
3. Sarthak s/o Ramrao More Aged about 6 yrs., Occ. Student. All r/o Ansing, Tah. & Distt. Washim. [Petitioners No.2 & 3 being minor through natural guardian father i.e. petitioner No.1] ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanja, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3734/2017 PETITIONERS : 1. Shubham s/o Jagdish More Aged about 13 yrs., (minor) Occ. Student.
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 :::
wp7817.17.odt 3
2. Shrikant s/o Jagdish More Aged aboaut 11 yrs., (minor) Occ. Student.
Both R/o Wakad, Tah. Risod, Distt. Washim. Petitioners No.1 & 2 being minors represented by their natural guardian father Shri Jagdish Vitthal More.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3736/2017 PETITIONERS : 1. Ganesh s/o Ramdas Bansod Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Service.
2. Pooja d/o Ganesh Bansod Aged about 17 yrs., Occ. Student.
3. Gopal s/o Suresh Bansod Aged about 12 yrs., Occ. Student. All r/o At -Post-Chikhli (Sarnaik), Tah. Risod, Distt. Washim.
Petitioners No.2 & 3 being minors represented by their natural guardian father/uncle Shri Ganesh Ramdas Bansod (petitioner No.1) ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 ::: wp7817.17.odt 4 ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4416/2017 PETITIONER : Ku. Radhika D/o Suresh Kharat Aged about 21 years, Occ. Student, R/o Appaswami Nagar, Risod, Tah. Risod, Distt. Washim.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Washim, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7818/2017 PETITIONERS: 1. Ananya d/o Mohan Khare Aged about 04 ys., Occ. Student.
2. Rushikesh s/o Mohan Khare Aged about 14 yrs., Occ. Student. Petitioner No.1 & 2 being minor through guardian father Shri Mohan s/o Pralhad ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 ::: wp7817.17.odt 5 Khare Aged about 43 yrs. Occ. Labour, R/o Malipura, Kholapuri Gate, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanja, Distt. Washim.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7819/2017 PETITIONER: Swara D/o Ravindra Khare Aged about 05 yrs., Occ. Student, being minor through natural guardian father Shri Ravindra s/o Pralhad Khare Aged about 37 yrs., Occ. Labour, R/o Madipura, Kholapuri Gate, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanja, Distt. Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 :::
wp7817.17.odt 6 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7820/2017 PETITIONERS: 1. Ram s/o Deepak Khare Aged about 09 yrs., Occ. Student.
2. Aditi s/o Deepak Khare Aged about 02 yrs., Occ. Student. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 being minor through guardian father Shri Deepak s/o Pralhad Khare Aged about 40 yrs., Occ. Service, R/o Ekvira Vidyut Colony, Akoli Road, Sainagar, Amravati, Distt. Amravati.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karanja, Distt. Washim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms Preeti D. Rane, Counsel for petitioners in all petitions Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents in W.P. Nos.7817/17 & 7819/17 Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Addl. G.P. for respondents in W.P. Nos.3662/17 & 7820/17 Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondents in W.P. No.3666/17 Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondents in W.P. No.3734/17 Ms Shamsi Haider, AGP for respondents in W.P. No.3736/17 Shri S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondents in W.P. No.4416/17 Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for respondents in W.P. No.7818/17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
DATE : 24/01/2018 ::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 ::: wp7817.17.odt 7
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.) Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and similar orders passed by the Competent Authority - Sub Divisional Officers rejecting the caste claim of the petitioners are challenged therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
By these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the order of the Sub Division Officers, refusing to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioners and invalidating their claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the issue involved in these petitions was also involved in Writ Petition Nos.663/2014, 5481/2014, 5710/2014 and 4938/2015 and this Court has, by the orders dated 26/3/2014, 14/11/2014 and 25/8/2015 respectively, allowed the said writ petitions and similar orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officers were quashed and set aside. It is stated that after quashing the said orders this Court had directed the Sub Divisional Officers to issue the caste certificates in favour of the petitioners in the said writ petitions. The learned Counsel seeks similar orders in these writ petitions, on parity.
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 :::
wp7817.17.odt 8 The learned Additional Government Pleaders and the Assistant Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the respondents do not dispute the statements made on behalf of the petitioners. It is fairly admitted that in almost similar set of facts this Court has partly allowed the writ petitions and has quashed the similar orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officers. It is stated that an appropriate order could be passed in these writ petitions also.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and for the reasons recorded in the order dated 26/3/2014 in Writ Petition No.663/2014 these writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Sub Divisional Officers/Competent Authority are directed to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioners within three weeks so that the petitioners could submit the same to the respective Scrutiny Committees for verification.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
::: Uploaded on - 29/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2018 01:19:12 :::