Chandrakant Adhik Sonawane And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4521 Bom

                                     1                         920-WP-4082-22.odt




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4082 OF 2022


1.      Chandrakant s/o. Adhik Sonawane,
        Age 46 years, Occu. Labour,

2.      Dinesh s/o. Chandrakant Sonawane,
        Age 14 years (Minor), Occu. Student,
        U/g. of Petitioner No.1 -
        Chandrakant s/o. Adhik Sonawane

3.      Vijaya d/o. Chandrakant Koli,
        Age 17 years, Occu. Student,
        U/g. of Petitioner No.1 -
        Chandrakant s/o. Adhik Sonawane

        All R/o. At Kauthal, Post Nihalot,
        Taluka and District Dhule.                    ..      Petitioners

                          Versus

1.      The State of Maharashtra
        Department of Tribal Development,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
        Through its Secretary.

2.      The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
        Committee, Nandurbar Division,
        Nandurbar, Taluka and District Nandurbar,
        Through its Member Secretary             ..           Respondents

                                 ...
Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. A. S. Shinde, A.G.P for Respondents - State
                                 ...

                                   CORAM :    R. D. DHANUKA &
                                              S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 28-04-2022

2 920-WP-4082-22.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : R. D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

Rule. Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for

respondents. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the parties.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the petitioners seek the writ of mandamus against the

respondent no. 2 - The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar to decide Appeal filed

by the petitioners on 06.12.2021, expeditiously, and not later than

two weeks from today.

3. Learned A.G.P. for the respondents states that file of Appeal

filed by petitioners is not traceable in the office of respondent no.2

- committee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to

reconstruct the copy of Appeal within one week.

5. We accordingly direct the respondent no. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee to decide the said Appeal of the petitioners within two

weeks from the date of reconstruction of the Appeal, without fail.

The order that would be passed by the respondent no. 2 -

Committee shall be communicated to the petitioners within one

3 920-WP-4082-22.odt

week from the date of passing of such order. If the appeal of the

petitioners is decided in favour of the petitioners, the

consequential benefits shall be granted within four weeks from the

date of passing of such order in favour of the petitioners and if the

same is adverse against the petitioners, the petitioners would be

at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

6. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No

order as to costs.

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

8. The parties shall act on the authenticate copy of this order.

9. The learned A. G. P. shall communicate this order to the

respondent no. 2 - Committee for information and compliance.

        ( S. G. MEHARE )                              ( R. D. DHANUKA )
              JUDGE                                           JUDGE



rrd