Yogesh Bhayyaji Bokde vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2560 Bom

                                               1



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                  
                             NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                          
    Writ Petition No.  944  of 2003




                                                         
    Petitioner               :      Yogesh son of Bhayyaji Bokde, aged about
                                    20 years, Student c/o B. P. Bokde, 230, Suyog
                                    Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur




                                             
                                    versus

    Respondents              :

ig1) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur

2) The Chairman, R. E. C. Admission Committee, 2002 c/o Visvesaraiya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur

3) Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad

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

Respondent no. 3 served

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 an engineer.

3.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for

respondents no. 1 and 2 does not dispute these developments. Nobody

appears for respondent no. 3-College.

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