Bombay High Court
Bharat Dadarao Nilewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Dige
1 12-CA-12292-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
12 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12292 OF 2019
IN WP/10097/2019 WITH WP/10097/2019
DATTATRAYA BHUJANGRAO SURNAR
VERSUS
BHARAT DADARAO NILEWAD AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ram S. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent No. 1- Petitioner : Mr. V.V. Jadhav
Addl GP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. P.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 in WP : Mr. U.B. Bondar
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATE : 4th APRIL, 2022
PER COURT :-
1. The applicant - intervenor resides in the village, which the
petitioner hails from. He does not belong to the caste of the petitioner.
Having realized that the petitioner is purportedly played a fraud and has
obtained a Scheduled Tribe Certificate of 'Koli Mahadev', when he
actually belongs to the caste 'Hindu Koli' which would fall in SBC
category, that he had lodged a complaint with the Competent Committee
under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Act, 2000. He had supplied several documents, to
expose the petitioner. Though he was not allowed to intervene before
the Competent Committee, most of the documents placed on record by
him, were considered by the Committee while invalidating the claim of
the petitioner.
2 12-CA-12292-19.odt
2. The petitioner has been granted ad-interim protection by this
Court on 14-08-2019 and he continued to be the headmaster of the
school which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category.
3. The learned Advocate for the intervenor has vehemently
canvassed that he would properly assist the Court as well the learned
counsel for the Committee in order to expose the misdeeds of the
petitioner. He relies upon the judgment delivered by the Honourable
Apex Court in the case Raju Ramsing Vasave Versus. Mahesh Deorao
Bhivapurkar and others ( (2008) 9 SCC 54).
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
intervention of the applicant is not necessary.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondent-Committee submits that
the Court may pass appropriate orders.
6. In the light of the peculiar facts as recorded above, we are of the
view that the Civil Application can be considered along with the writ
petition and if needed, assistance of the intervenor may be taken only if
we form a view that his intervention would assist the Court.
7. The ad-interim relief granted earlier would continue until further
orders.
8. Needless to state, no equities would be granted in favour of the
petitioner and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in
the matter of Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of
India and others Versus Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others (2017) 8
SCC 670, would squarely apply to the case of the petitioner, if adverse
orders are passed by this Court in his writ petition.
3 12-CA-12292-19.odt
9. Since we are informed that the show cause notices are issued to
the validity holders, who are related to the petitioner and since the
petitioner seeks support from such validity holders, we permit the
respondents to circulate this matter, if in the facts and circumstances,
they find that this petition needs to be heard out of turn.
( S.G. DIGE ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE )
JUDGE JUDGE
mtk
