Bombay High Court
Kalpana W/O. Moreshwar ... vs The Collector And District ... on 7 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0710WP5870.15-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5870 OF 2015
PETITIONER :- Kalpana w/o Moreshwar Narnaware,
Maiden name Kalpana d/o Dinkar Mankar,
Member, Grampanchayat Jogisaka, aged 34
yrs., Occupation: Social Worker, R/o
Jogisakhara, Post Jogisakhara, Tah. Armori,
Dist. Gadchiroli - 441 208.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- ig 1) The Collector and District Election Officer,
Gadchiroli, Office at Complex Area,
Gadchiroli, Tah. And District Gadchiroli.
2) Returning Officer and Tahsildar, Armori,
Tahsil Office, Armori, Distt. Gadchiroli.
3) Block Development Officer, Panchayat
Samiti, Armori, Tahsil Armori, Distt.
Gadchiroli.
4) Secretary, Grampanchayat, Jogisakhara,
Office at Jogisakhara, Tah.Armori, Distt.
Gadchiroli.
5) State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
6) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli, Nagpur Through its
Chairman, Committee for Scheduled Tribe
Claims, Office at Near Zilla Parishad
Sankool, Complex Area, Gadchiroli, Tq.&
Distt. Gadchiroli.
7) State Election Commission, Maharashtra
Administrative Building in front of
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumba-32.
::: Uploaded on - 14/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2016 00:08:08 :::
0710WP5870.15-Judgment 2/3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.P. P. Dhok, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.V.P.Maldhure, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1,2,5 & 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 07.10.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition
is heard finally, as the notice for final disposal is served on the
respondents.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction
against the respondent-Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of
the petitioner within a time frame. The petitioner also seeks a direction
against the respondent-Collector not to cancel the membership of the
petitioner of the Gram Panchayat, till her caste claim is decided.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner belongs to Mana
Scheduled Tribe and though the caste claim of the petitioner is referred
to the Scrutiny Committee for verification, the Scrutiny Committee has
not decided the same. It is stated that the respondent No.2-Returning
Officer has informed the petitioner that his membership of the Gram
Panchayat would be cancelled, if he fails to submit the caste validity
certificate.
0710WP5870.15-Judgment 3/3
4. Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee, states on instructions
that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending and the same would be
decided as early as possible.
5. In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant
Government Pleader that the caste claim of the petitioner is pending,
we allow the writ petition. The respondent No.6-Scrutiny Committee is
directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within eighteen
months. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to protect the
membership of the petitioner till her caste claim is decided. Rule is
made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
