Bombay High Court
Bhagirathibai Govind Potalwad @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
wp 12038.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12038 OF 2016
Bhagirathibai D/o Govind Potalwad,
@ Bhagirathibai w/o Maroti Bonlewad,
Age; 56 years, occu: Household,
R/o Barao Galli, Mukhed,
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Tribal Development Department,
Through Its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3 The Sub Divisional Officer,
Degloor, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded Respondents
Mr. P. V. Jadhavar advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Y. G. Gujrathi, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents
_______________
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL , JJ
(Date : 5th December, 2016.)
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Heard.
2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
{2}
wp 12038.16.odt
for final decision at admission stage.
3 The application tendered by the petitioner for issuance of
tribe certificate was turned down by respondent No.3 on
28.10.2016, which order is impugned in the instant petition.
4 It is not a matter of dispute that, earlier, the petitioner was
issued a tribe certificate by the Competent Authority on
14.10.2011 and a proposal was submitted by petitioner for
verification of the certificate to the scrutiny Committee. The
scrutiny committee turned down the proposal tendered by the
petitioner, merely on the ground that the name of the father of
the petitioner has not been recorded in the tribe certificate, which
is a mandatory requirement under the relevant Rules. The
petitioner has been given opportunity to secure proper certificate
and re-submit the same for verification.
5 Although, on earlier occasion, certificate was issued in
favour of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer has turned
down the request of petitioner for re-issuance of certificate by
order dated 28.10.2016 on the ground that the petitioner has
failed to submit old record.
6 It would be pertinent to note that while certificate was
{3}
wp 12038.16.odt
earlier issued on 14.10.2011, the authority was satisfied as
regards tribe status of the petitioner, however, it is surprising that
the same authority in 2016 is not satisfied as regards the tribe
status of the petitioner. The impugned order has thus been
passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, without application of mind.
Apart from this, the rejection of the application amounts to failure
to exercise jurisdiction vested in the concerned authority. The
impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent
no.3-The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to issue fresh tribe
certificate to the petitioner in the prescribed proforma, as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 15 days
from today. On receipt of the certificate, it would be open for the
petitioner to submit proposal for verification of the tribe certificate
directly to the scrutiny committee within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of the tribe certificate.
7 Rule is made absolute in above terms. Writ petition is
disposed of.
8 There shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
