Mahendra Vijay Unawane Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 316 Bom

                                               {1}
                                                                             wp251516.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                                 
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        WRIT PETITION NO.2515 OF 2016 




                                                         
     Mahendra s/o Vijay Unawane,
     age: 17 years, Occ: Student,
     since minor through its Guardian,
     Vijay s/o Ramkisan Unawane,




                                                        
     age: 51 years, Occ: Labour,
     R/o Kasaba Peth, Pathardi,
     Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar.                           Petitioner

              Versus




                                           
     01 The State of Maharashtra,
                             
          through its Secretary,
          Social Welfare Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                            
     02 The Scheduled Caste Certificate
          Scrutiny Committee,
          Nashik Division, Nashik,
          through its Member Secretary.
      


     03 The Sub Divisional Officer,
   



          District Ahmednagar.                                    Respondents

     04 Shri Tilok Jain Secondary &
          Higher Secondary Vidyalaya,
          Pathardi, Tq. Pathardi,





          District Ahmednagar,                                    Respondent
          through its Principal.                                  No.4 deleted.


     Mr.A.G.Ambetkar, advocate for the petitioner. 





     Mr.V.M.Kagane,  A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.
     Respondent No.4 deleted.
      

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

                                               DATE    : 03rd March, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):





                                                 {2}
                                                                              wp251516.odt




                                                                                  
     1                At the request of learned Counsel for petitioner, name 
     of Respondent No.4 stands deleted.




                                                         
     2                Heard.     Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith   and 

heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

3 The grievance raised by the petitioner, in the instant petition, is in respect of refusal by the Scrutiny Committee to

accept proposal of the petitioner for verification of caste certificate issued to the petitioner.ig 4 The petitioner contends that the Scrutiny Committee

has refused to accept the proposal on the ground that the purpose for which the validity certificate was sought, no more exists.

5 An individual requires validity certificate for various

purposes i.e. education, employment and for securing benefits under various Government schemes. The Scrutiny Committee cannot refuse to accept the proposal merely on the ground that no

purpose has been stated or that the purpose for which the proposal was earlier presented, no more subsists. It shall be obligatory on the part of the Scrutiny Committee to take decision on the proposal presented by an individual for verification of

his/her caste/tribe.

6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands allowed. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to accept the proposal, if tendered by the petitioner, directly to the Scrutiny Committee, within a period of six weeks from today and shall proceed to deal with the issue of

{3} wp251516.odt

verification of his caste certificate and pass appropriate orders, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of proposal.

7 Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

             A.I.S.CHEEMA                                R.M.BORDE




                                          
                   JUDGE                                    JUDGE
     adb/wp251516