Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Kiran Dinesh Sing vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2705 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 2705 Bom
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2016

Bombay High Court
Smt. Kiran Dinesh Sing vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors on 9 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
                                                 1/3                       0906wp249.99-Judgment




                                                                                              
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                           WRIT PETITION NO.  249   OF   1999

     PETITIONER :-                        Smt.   Kiran   Wife   of   Dinesh   Sing,   aged   30




                                                                   
                                          years,   Resident   of   Dadabhai   Navroji   Ward,
                                          Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. 

                                             ...VERSUS... 




                                                   
     RESPONDENTS :-                  1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
                                        Ministry of Tribal Development, Mantralaya,
                               ig       Mumbai.  

                                     2. Scheduled  Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny
                                        Committee, through its Deputy Director and
                             
                                        Member   Secretary,   having   its   office   at
                                        "Adivasi   Vikas   Bhawan",   Giripeth,   Opp.
                                        R.T.O., Amravati Road, Nagpur. 
      

                                     3. Sunanda   wife   of   Madhukar   Atram,
                                        Municipal   Councillor,   Resident   of   Tirupati
   



                                        Balaji Nagar, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur.

     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.





                                  None for the respondent No.3.
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
                                                        MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,  JJ.

DATED : 09.06.2016

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of

the Scrutiny Committee, dated 15/12/1998 invalidating the claim of

the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.

2/3 0906wp249.99-Judgment

2. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

the order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside, as the

mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ku.Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 have

not been followed. It is stated that though the vigilance enquiry was

conducted in the caste claim of the petitioner and the Vigilance Report

dated 27/11/1998 was prepared by the Vigilance Cell, the Vigilance

Officer did not record the statements of the parents and near relatives

of the petitioner. It is stated that in view of the non compliance of the

mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned

order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to

the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on the caste claim of the

petitioner

3. Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, states that a

proper vigilance enquiry was conducted in the matter. It is, however,

fairly stated on a perusal of the Vigilance Report that it appears that the

statements of the parents and near relatives of the petitioner were not

recorded by the Vigilance Officer.

3/3 0906wp249.99-Judgment

4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the Vigilance Report, it appears that the submission made on

behalf of the petitioner needs to be upheld. It is apparent from a

perusal of the Vigilance Report that the Vigilance Officer has not

conducted the enquiry as required by the directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581. It

appears that the Vigilance Officer has not recorded the statements of

the parents and near relatives of the petitioner before preparing the

report, dated 27/11/1998. Since one of the mandatory directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported judgment has not

been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is

remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on the caste

claim of the petitioner, on merits. Since the petitioner has not contacted

the counsel in the recent past, the Scrutiny Committee may decide the

caste claim of the petitioner only after ensuring that a notice is duly

served on the petitioner before her caste claim is decided. Rule is made

absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                   JUDGE                                            JUDGE 

     KHUNTE





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter