Vivekanand Pandurang Akoskar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 208 Bom

                                                                       wp2370.16
                                            1


                                            




                                                                          
          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                          WRIT PETITION NO.2370 OF 2016




                                                 
     1) Vivekanand s/o Pandurang Akoskar,
        Age-22 years, Occu:Student,
        R/o-Kolewadi, Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad,




                                         
     2) Sadanand s/o Pandurang Akoskar,
        Age-27 years, Occu:Student,
                             
        R/o-Kolewadi, Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad.

                                     ...PETITIONERS 
                            
            VERSUS             

     1) The State of Maharashtra,
        Through it's Secretary,
      

        Tribal Development Department,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
   



     2) The Sub-Divisional Officer,
        Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist-Osmanabad,





     3) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
        Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division,
        Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary,

     4) The Superintendent of Police,
        (S.P. Office), Latur, Dist-Latur,





     5) The Police Commissioner,
        Commissioner Office, Pune City,
        Tq. & Dist-Pune.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS




    ::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 07:25:11 :::
                                                                  wp2370.16
                                     2


                          ...




                                                                    
        Mr.Pratap V. Jadhavar Advocate for Petitioners.
        Mr.S.B. Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for Respondent
        Nos. 1 to 5.       




                                            
                          ...

                   CORAM:   R.M. BORDE AND
                            A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATE : 1ST MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER R.M. BORDE, J.] :

1.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for

the parties, the Petition is taken up for final

disposal at admissions stage.

2. The Petitioners are objecting to the

decision of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 31st

March 2012 and 16th December 2013, refusing to

issue caste certificates in favour of the

Petitioners. The Petitioners contend that appeals

are tendered, challenging the decision of the Sub

Divisional Officer, however the same are not yet

decided.

wp2370.16

3. The Petitioners claim to belong to "Koli

Mahadev", Scheduled Tribe. In identical

circumstances, the request of real brother of the

Petitioners for issuance of caste certificate was

turned down by the Sub Divisional Officer and the

brother was required to approach the Scrutiny

Committee by way of an appeal. The Scrutiny

Committee decided appeal on 7th July 2011 and

directed the Sub Divisional Officer to issue caste

certificate in favour of real brother of the

Petitioners.

4. In the circumstances, since the Scrutiny

Committee has directed issuance of caste

certificate in favour of real brother of the

Petitioners, it is difficult to understand as to

why the Sub Divisional Officer shall not issue

caste certificates to the Petitioners. Apart from

this, there are sufficient documents placed on

record to substantiate the claim of the

wp2370.16

Petitioners.

5. In this view of the matter, we quash the

orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on

31st March 2012 and 16th December 2013 refusing to

issue caste certificates, and direct the Sub

Divisional Officer, Osmanabad to issue caste

certificates in favour of the Petitioners,

forthwith, by 3rd March 2016, to facilitate the

Petitioners to tender applications for employment

in police department.

6. In view of the order passed in the

instant Petition, the appeals presented by the

Petitioners to the Scrutiny Committee are rendered

infructuous and stand disposed of.

7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above

terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] [R.M. BORDE, J.] asb/MAR16