Sumit S/O Bhaurao Dadmal vs The Directorate Of Techinical ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7844 Bom

                                             1                   judWP5698.15.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                                   
                      WRIT PETITION NO.5698/2015

 Sumit S/o Bhaurao Dadmal
 Aged about 22 yrs, 
 Occ. Student,
 R/o. Tirthrup Nagar, Near Water Purifier Tank,
 D.G. Tukum, 
 Chandrapur - 442401.                                      :      PETITIONERS

                ...VERSUS...

 1.             The Directorate of Technical Education,
                Maharashtra State, Mumbai - 400 001.

 2.             The Principal,
                Yashwantrao Chavan College of Engineering,
                Hingna Road, Nagpur.

 3.             The Scheduled Tribe Caste
                Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 
                Gadchiroli.

 4.             The Secretary,
                Tribal & Social Welfare Department,
                Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32         :       RESPONDENTS



 Ms. Preeti Rane Advocate h/f Ms. Smita S. Dashputre for petitioner.
 Mr. A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
 __________________________________________________________

                               CORAM  : ANOOP V. MOHTA 
                                                             &
                                         M. G. GIRATKAR,   JJ.

                               DATE     : 05.10.2017.





                                                      2                  judWP5698.15.odt


 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per  
                     ANOOP V. MOHTA
                                    ,J.)

1. Taking out from final hearing Board.

2. Heard counsel appearing for the parties.

3. We are inclined to dispose of present writ petition by directing respondent No. 3 - Committee to dispose of the petitioner's caste claim so pending, since 2011.

4. There is validity certificate of the cousin of the the petitioner. The same has attained finality. There is no case of fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, we are of the view that, the Committee requires to deal with the same as early as possible, preferably within two months. This is specifically, in view of the settled position of law by this Court through various judgments . The petition is accordingly disposed of.

5. This Court while admitting the petition on 4th January, 2016, granted protection in the background of pendency of the petitioner's caste claim.

6. In view of the above, interim order so granted be treated as final and is confirmed.

7. Rule made absolute, accordingly.

8. No costs.

                    JUDGE                                    JUDGE
 Gohane