Bombay High Court
Shashikant Babanrao Pandhare vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 January, 2018
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 Sr14 WP524.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 524 OF 2018
Shashikant S/o Babanrao Pandhare
Age : 40 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. S.T. Colony, Near Mahadeo Mandir,
Sanja Road, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny/Verification Committee,
Aurangabad.
3. Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Osmanabad.
4. Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,
Tuljapur Division, Behind Old Bus Stand, Tuljapur,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents
..........
Mr O. B. Boinwad, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr S. G. Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State
.............
::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 02:01:16 :::
2 Sr14 WP524.2018
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 15TH JANUARY, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision at admission stage.
3. The petitioner is taking exception to the decision rendered
by the Scrutiny Committee, directing invalidation of the tribe
certificate issued to him, certifying him that he is belonging to Koli
Mahadev, scheduled tribe, on technical ground of occurrence of
spelling mistake, or discrepancies in writing the nomenclature of the
tribe in the certificate issued by the concerned Sub Divisional Officer.
4. The issue raised in this petition is no more res integra and is
covered by the decision rendered in Writ Petition No. 6263 of 2017
and other companion matters. For the reasons recorded in the
Judgment referred to above, the instant petition also deserves to be
3 Sr14 WP524.2018
allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.
5. The order impugned in the instant petition stands quashed
and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to return the
original tribe certificate produced by the petitioners before it, within
four weeks from today. The petitioner shall tender an undertaking to
the Scrutiny Committee that the concerned petitioner would
approach the concerned competent scrutiny committee for ratifying
the spelling mistake/discrepancy in recording the nomenclature of
the tribe and shall produce the corrected certificate within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the original certificate. The
petitioner shall approach the concerned Sub Divisional Officer for
recording correction in the tribe certificate already issued to him. The
concerned Sub Divisional Officer shall issue corrected certificate
within a period of four weeks from the date of approach of the
petitioner, without embarking upon any further enquiry in the
matter. On receipt of corrected certificate, within a period of four
weeks from the date of its receipt. The Scrutiny Committee shall,
thereafter proceed to decide the claim of the petitioner for validation
of the tribe certificate and render decision on the proposal, within a
period of one year from the date of receipt of the corrected certificate
together with proposal if any. It would be open for the petitioner to
4 Sr14 WP524.2018
tender the corrected certificate and the proposal directly to the
Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee shall entertain the
same and shall proceed to decide the matter on its own merit and
shall not reject it on any technical grounds.
6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. In the mean while, no coercive action be taken against the
petitioner, merely on the ground of invalidation of the tribe
certificate on technical ground.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
