Bombay High Court
Ku. Avanti Malti Upadhye Through ... vs District Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 21 October, 2021
Author: Anil S. Kilor
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.7588 OF 2019
(Suresh s/o Tukaram Jayde & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7642 OF 2019
(Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Amdapur & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7648 OF 2019
(Anand Bahu-uddeshiya Magas Gramin Mahila Mandal, Parsodi, Umred & anr. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7679 OF 2019
(Sulabh Safai Kamgar Kalyan Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Murtizapur Vs. State of Mah. & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7705 OF 2019
(Mukesh s/o Gajanan Tadas Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7709 OF 2019
(Prashant s/o Vilas Sherkure Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7708 OF 2019
(Baba Shivgiri Goswami Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7707 OF 2019
(Nishant s/o Suhas Lakhe Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7706 OF 2019
(Dinesh s/o Sarveshwar Chaudhari Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7713 OF 2019
(Ku. Geeta Mangalsingh Chavhan Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7733 OF 2019
(Yashodhara w/o Anupkumar Sangode Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7760 OF 2019
(Union of India & ors. Vs. Kisan Laxman Adhe)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7771 OF 2019
(Yograj s/o Rajiram Kapghate Vs. The State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 :::
176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 2
WRIT PETITION NO.7891 OF 2019
(Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Ansing & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7924 OF 2019
(M/s. Kohinoor Restaurant Vs. The Collector, Gondia & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7929 OF 2019
(Hotel Eagle Vs. The Collector, Gondia & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7939 OF 2019
(Sau. Hemlata Sachin Kotangale Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7942 OF 2019
(Shaukat s/o Zaman Ansari & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & anr.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7955 OF 2019
(Shri Uddhaw Prahlad Bagde Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7966 OF 2019
(Shri Makrand Vasanta Kapgate & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.7972 OF 2019
(Priyanka w/o Dinesh Pashine Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8001 OF 2019
(Pawan s/o Ramkrushna Gawande & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8018 OF 2019
(Sunil s/o Rameshchandra Verma Vs. Union of India & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8060 OF 2019
(Bhandara District Labour Co-operative Societies Federation, Bhandara Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8068 OF 2019
(Prakash s/o Namdev Alhat & anr. Vs. Zilla Parishad, Buldhana & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8203 OF 2019
(Jijamata Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & anr. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8339 OF 2019
(Renuka D/o Tulshiram Jadhav Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare, Washim & ors.)
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.8381 OF 2019
(Ku. Avanti Malti Upadhye thr. Natural Guardian Mother Ku. Malti D/o Haridasji Upadhye Vs.
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Wardha thr. its Chairman)
AND
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 :::
176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 3
WRIT PETITION NO.8514 OF 2019
(Dr. (Principal) Santoshrao s/o Mahadeorao Thakre Vs. State of Mah. & ors.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 21, 2021
1. Today there is a big bunch of cases, 400 cases, which have been grouped together under the category of passing of suitable orders following non removal of office objections and accordingly, this bunch of petitions has been listed on board today for passing necessary orders.
2. Shri Bhanudas Kulkarni, learned Advocate and Shri Firdos Mirza, learned Advocate representing the Bar have made few submissions as well as suggestions.
3. It is submitted that there are some cases in which an impression is gathered that office has taken objections just for the sake of taking of them although, if looked at them minutely, one would be convinced that there are no objections at all and, therefore, it would be unjust on the part of this Court to pass a conditional order like removal of the office objections, failing which dismissal will occur, which would be ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 ::: 176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 4 causing great injustice to the parties. In order to support the submission, one case was pointed out to this Court wherein it was seen that the page in respect of which the office objection was taken, was clear and legible, but for the rubber stamp which appears at the top of the page and this rubber stamp though not legible, is not required to be considered when any reference is to be made to this page or any reliance is to be placed upon this page. It is further submitted that if an opportunity is given to the Bar to explain these facts to the office, perhaps, some of the objections which have been presently taken, would be withdrawn by the office.
4. On going through the page to which our attention was drawn, we find ourselves in agreement with the aforesaid submission. The office objection taken as regards this page appears to be unnecessary and, therefore, we would direct the Registrar (Judicial) to consider such exceptions taken to the office objections in their right spirit and decide to withdraw or waive the office objections in that regard.
5. It is suggested that if liberty is granted to the Bar to convince the office regarding insignificance or non existence of what is considered by the office to be an objectionable fact, many of the problems would be sorted out and no injustice would be caused to the ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 ::: 176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 5 parties. We cannot but agree more. At the same time, we would like to emphasise here that in many cases the objections taken are indeed valid and, therefore, it would be necessary for the parties to remove these office objections as ultimately, removing of the office objections only would lead to effective administration of justice in every case. Therefore, in those cases where the office objections are validly taken and they are considered to be so upon careful thinking by the parties or their learned Advocates, every effort for removal of such office objections must be made and we are sure that this will be done by the parties, members of the Bar and the Registry, acting in collaboration with each other.
6. Accordingly, we direct that all those cases wherein the parties and their learned Advocates are of the opinion that all the office objections or any of them are insignificant and ought not to have been taken, be placed before Registrar (Judicial) for his appropriate consideration and passing of the suitable order, including withdrawal of the office objections, if he is convinced about the same. This shall be done within next four weeks.
7. As regards the remaining cases wherein the parties and learned Advocates are convinced that the office objections are validly taken, all the office ::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 ::: 176 to200wp7588.19+ors..odt 6 objections shall be removed within six weeks from the date of the order.
JUDGE JUDGE
*DB
::: Uploaded on - 22/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 23/10/2021 04:46:11 :::