Manish Shyam Bokde vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2559 Bom

                                                   1



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                          
                                NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                              
    Writ Petition No.  926  of 2003 




                                                             
    Petitioner                  :      Manish son of shyam Bokde, aged about 19
                                       years, Occ: Student, resident of c/o Rohit
                                       Tailors, Near House of Eknathsao Paonikar, 




                                                 
                                       Tandapeth, Nagpur



    Respondents                 :

igversus

1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

2) The Director of Education and Research, Mumbai

3) Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha

Mr V. V. Bhangde, Advocate and Mr Tapadiya, Advocate with him for petitioner

Ms Ketki Joshi, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents no. 1 and 2

Mr Nikhil Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent no. 3

Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari And

Kum. I. K. Jain, JJ

Dated : 6th June 2016

Oral Judgment (Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J)

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 3.1.2003

passed by respondent no. 1 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim

of the petitioner as belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe.

2. Advocate Bhangde with Advocate Tapadiya fairly point out that

identical challenge raised by a relative of the petitioner viz. Ku Preeti

Prabhakar Bokde in Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2003 is dismissed on 8 th April

2015. They also points out that while issuing rule in the matter, this Court

directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Accordingly, the petitioner has

completed his education and has become a doctor.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for

respondents no. 1 and 2 and Advocate Gaikwad appearing for respondent no.

3 do not dispute these developments.

4. In this situation, following the judgment dated 8 th April 2015 in

Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2003, we dismiss the writ petition. Rule

discharged. No costs.

KUM. I. K. JAIN, J B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J

joshi