Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Bombay High Court

Ku. Chaitali Kisan Chaukhe vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 24 October, 2018

Author: S.M. Modak

Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari, S.M. Modak

cp280.18                                                                                         1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

 CP NO. 280/2018 IN PIL NO. 102  OF  2013   IN PIL NO. 11  OF  2016
 (Poonam Gaikwad vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli thr. its
                            Member Secretary & Ors.) WITH
 CP NO. 232/2018 IN PIL NO. 102  OF  2013   IN PIL NO. 11  OF  2016
(Prabandha Nannaware vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli thr.
                           its Member Secretary & Ors.) WITH
CP NO. 233/2018 IN PIL NO. 102  OF  2013  IN PIL NO. 11  OF  2016
 (Ku. Chaitali Chaukhe vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli thr.
                              its Member Secretary & Ors.) AND
 CP NO. 281/2018 IN PIL NO. 102  OF  2013   IN PIL NO. 11  OF  2016
   (Kisan Chaukhe vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli thr. its
                                 Member Secretary & Ors.) 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions               Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.


                                                        CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                                 S.M. MODAK, JJ.               

OCTOBER 24, 2018.

Shri N.R. Patil, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 submits that after this Court issued notice before admission in the matter, the Committee Members have reconsidered the cases and validities have been issued to the respective petitioners. The learned AGP, therefore, submits that in this situation, ignoring or condoning the lapse, Contempt Petitions be disposed of.

2. Shri S.P. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners is strongly opposing disposal of Contempt Petitions. He submits that deliberately wrong orders are passed, though settled propositions are brought to the notice of the Committee Members and are known to them.

::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 02:27:14 ::: cp280.18 2

3. We have taken note of the contention of Shri Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners. We keep the same open. We also direct the State Government through Tribal Development Department, to circulate today's order to all Committee Members in the State of Maharashtra.

4. As the Committee Members have acted earlier in quasi judicial capacity and have rectified the error of their own, in present facts we are not inclined to keep Contempt Petitions pending. Contempt Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

                                       JUDGE                                  JUDGE
                         Deshmukh




           ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018                           ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 02:27:14 :::