Shri. Ramvachan Sitaram Murai vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6121 Bom

                                                  (906) CAW 1844-17 in WP 8775-17.doc

DDR

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1844  OF 2017
                                        IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 8775 OF 2017

       Shri Ramvachan Sitaram Murai                              ...Applicant

       In the matter of                   
       Shri Ramvachan Sitaram Murai                              .. Petitioner
             Vs.
       The State of Maharashtra & others                         .. Respondents
                                  ............

       Mr. Rajendra Desai with Raghavan Sarathy i/by Thodur Law 
       Associates for the Applicant and Petitioner.
       Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent no.1/State.
       Mr. B.D. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
                                    ............

                                                         CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & 
                                                                       M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2017

P.C. :

The prayer made in the Civil Application seeking

direction from this Court which are violative of the provisions as

contained in Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,

De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other

Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation

(906) CAW 1844-17 in WP 8775-17.doc

of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. We are

of the considered view that such relief cannot be granted in Civil

Application. Civil Application is rejected.

2. The petitioner has sought a direction to investigate

with regard to the caste certificate issued in favour of

respondent no.6.

3. The certificate issued in favour of respondent no.6 is

already being scrutinized by the competent Scrutiny Committee.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to give direction

to investigate the caste certificate, at this stage. Needless to state

that in the event the Scrutiny Committee passes an order in

favour of valid claim of respondent no.6 and if the petitioner is

of the view that such order is not sustainable in law, it is always

open for him to challenge the said order. Petition is therefore

rejected.

     (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                             ( B.R.GAVAI, J.)