Chaitanya Shrenik Durugkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 11796 Bom

                                    1                             wp 9366.2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               959 WRIT PETITION NO.9366 OF 2021

          Chaitanya s/o Shrenik Durugkar,
          Age: 23 years, Occu.: Student,
          R/o. "Bharat Manti", Third Floor,
          Near Sanskar School, Beed,
          Tq. and Dist. : Beed         .. Petitioner

                                 Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Principal Secretary,
          Social Justice Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

 2.       The District Caste Certificate
          Verification Committee, Beed,
          Through its member Secretary,
          Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Samajik
          Nyay Bhavan, Nagar Road,
          Beed                        .. Respondents
                          ...
  Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat
        AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. W. Mundhe
                         ...

                               CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                      R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATE: 25th AUGUST, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.):

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the

consent of parties, matter is taken up for final

hearing.

                                       2                                  wp 9366.2021

 2.       The       caste        claim      of     the       petitioner              was

 referred            to        respondent        no.     2     committee             for

 verification.                 The   caste       claim       is     invalidated,

aggrieved thereby the present petition.

3. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner could not

submit the old school extract of his grandfather

which records the caste as 'Saitwal'. According

to the learned Advocate, no proper opportunity was

given. One more opportunity be given to the

petitioner.

4. The learned A.G.P. submits that ample

opportunity was given to the petitioner. Time to

time matter was adjourned at the request of the

petitioner and his father. Subsequently say was

also filed by the petitioner and he was also heard

and thereafter the matter was decided.

5. Perusal of the Judgment, it is manifest that

ample opportunity is given to the petitioner and

his father. Time to time adjournment was sought by

3 wp 9366.2021

the petitioner. The petitioner certainly cannot

make a grievance that proper opportunity was not

given to him.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner

could not produce the old school extract of his

grandfather.

7. The matter pertains to the social status of

the petitioner.

8. Considering the above, we are inclined to

grant one more opportunity to the petitioner.

However, the petitioner also deserves to be mulct

with costs.

9. The impugned order is quashed and set aside

on condition that the petitioner deposits costs of

Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) within a

period of two (02) weeks from today. The parties

are relegated before the Scrutiny committee. The

petitioner shall appear before the committee on

01.09.2021 and on the said date produce all the

documents on which the petitioner seeks to rely.

4 wp 9366.2021

In case, additional documents are produced, the

committee may conduct the vigilance in respect of

the said documents and thereafter decide the

proceeding afresh. The committee may endeavour to

decide the said proceeding by 10.10.2021. The

deposit of costs is condition precedent. The costs

may be deposited with the Advocates Bar

Association, High Court.

10. Rule accordingly made absolute on above

terms.

11. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

marathe