S.R.Krishnakumari vs The Tamilnadu State Level Scrutiny ... on 27 March, 2024
5) Vilas Dinkar Bhar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2018 (9) SCC 89);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (2.62 seconds)Documents citing
Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs State Of Maharashtra . on 10 August, 2018
Smt. Krishna vs State Of M.P. on 10 July, 2020
2684 and Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs. State of
Maharashtra and others; reported in AIR 2018 SC 3776. In
such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has
prayed that the petition be allowed the present petition.
Shreya D/O Subhash Katole vs The S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 12 December, 2022
In so far as the reference to the word ' Marathi' is concerned,
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to the decision in the
case of Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported
in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 385, wherein the Division Bench has observed that
the word 'Marathi' indicates a language and not any caste. Hence, due
::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2022 04:09:35 :::
WP.293.22+
6
weightage was not liable to be given to the said word ' Marathi'. Since
we find that the Petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to
meet all adverse documents that were proposed to be relied, it is not
found necessary to go into this aspect as the Petitioners can raise this
ground before the Scrutiny Committee.
Prasad S/O Ratnakar Katole vs The S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 12 December, 2022
In so far as the reference to the word ' Marathi' is concerned,
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred to the decision in the
case of Vilas Dinkar Bhat vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported
in 2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 385, wherein the Division Bench has observed that
the word 'Marathi' indicates a language and not any caste. Hence, due
WP.293.22+
6
weightage was not liable to be given to the said word ' Marathi'. Since
we find that the Petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity to
meet all adverse documents that were proposed to be relied, it is not
found necessary to go into this aspect as the Petitioners can raise this
ground before the Scrutiny Committee.
Rohit S/O Sunil Dhakate And Another vs The S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 22 August, 2025
In the case of
Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2021 (2) Mh.L.J. 385, this Court has observed that the caste
wp 3912-2025.odt 5/6
recorded as 'Marathi' is not a caste but a language and, therefore,
the document or the entries showing the caste as 'Marathi' cannot
be considered as adverse to the petitioners' claim.
Rohan S/O. Santosh Parate vs The Committee For Verification Of S.T. ... on 20 April, 2026
14. As regards the adverse vigilance material, the Scrutiny
Committee has firstly erred and thereafter willfully persisted in
relying upon the school record dated 03.07.1951 pertaining to one
'Ram Kisan' showing caste as 'Koshti'. A bare perusal of the family
tree of the petitioner shows that the petitioner's ancestor is 'Kisan'
and not 'Ram Kisan'. The said person does not appear anywhere in
the genealogy of the petitioner and therefore the said entry has
absolutely no bearing on the petitioner's tribe claim. As regards the
remaining five adverse entries at Sr. Nos.1 to 5 showing caste as
'Marathi', it is well settled that 'Marathi' is not a caste but a
language. The Principal Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Stamp
No. 92627 of 2020 (Vilas Dinkar Bhat v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.) has categorically held in paragraph 9 thereof that " the caste
recorded as 'Marathi' is not a caste but is a language and, therefore,
the said documents or said entries cannot be considered as adverse
to the petitioner's claim."
1