Rama Vitthal Nandanwar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, ... on 12 January, 2023
This
Court in Sanjay s/o Rama Nandanwar v. The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (supra) observed in para-6 as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2023
22. In view of above discussion, there is no dispute in respect of
the documents showing 'Halbi' entry of 1893, which is the oldest one.
KIRTAK / KHUNTE
WP-6431.17-J.odt
20/21
It has greater probative value than the other entries. Thus, the
documents procured by the Vigilance Cell showing adverse entry as
'Koshti' pertaining to the persons which are not in relation with the
petitioner and those are considered by the Scrutiny Committee in
violation of Rule 2(h) of the Rules of 2012. The respondent-Scrutiny
Committee is not at all justified in rejecting the pre-constitutional
documents pertaining to the years from 1893 till 1948. So also, the
basis of affinity test which is also against the law settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). As
such, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, in our
considered opinion, is perverse and contrary to the law and provisions
and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the writ petition is
allowed.
Vinayak Rambhau Waghmare, Ramesh ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 30 August, 1985
20. The learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee
has placed reliance upon the judgments in Writ Petition No. 11037 of
2024 (Tulsa Vishwanath Waware v. The State of Maharashtra) and
Petition No. 2394 of 2025 (Murlidhar Namdeorao Khadge v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), (supra), which primarily deal with the issue of
suppression of facts. However, in the present case, there is no
suppression of facts on behalf of the petitioner.
Ramesh Gulabrao Hedaoo vs The Schedule Tribe Certificate ... on 11 February, 2020
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance
on the judgment in Sharayu d/o Ramesh Hedaoo v. The Scheduled
Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & anr. (supra),
wherein this Court relying on the judgment in Writ Petition No.14111
KIRTAK / KHUNTE
WP-6431.17-J.odt
17/21
of 2021 (Mangesh Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai through its
Secretary) and other connected matters, held that even if caste of any
of the relative is invalidated, that does not bind other relatives and
the claimant can establish his/her claim independently.
Someshkumar Sunilkumar Katole vs Asst. Commi./Vice President, ... on 22 April, 2019
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgment in Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole v. The
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certified Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal
(supra), wherein this Court by relying on the judgment in Priya
Pravin Parate v. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur and others (supra) held in para 28 as under:
Shri. Ashok Bapu Chougule vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 September, 2018
21. Further, in support of his contention, the learned AGP for
the respondent-Scrutiny Committee relied upon the judgment in Writ
Petition No. 16225 of 2023 (Ritesh Ashok Chougale v. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.) (supra) and submitted that mere existence of
different caste entries can never, by itself, lead to falsification of
another set of entries unless it is demonstrated by the Petitioner that
the other set of entries does not depict the correct position with
regard to the social status claimed by the petitioner.
Murlidhar Namdeorao Khadge vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary ... on 10 June, 2022
20. The learned AGP for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee
has placed reliance upon the judgments in Writ Petition No. 11037 of
2024 (Tulsa Vishwanath Waware v. The State of Maharashtra) and
Petition No. 2394 of 2025 (Murlidhar Namdeorao Khadge v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), (supra), which primarily deal with the issue of
suppression of facts. However, in the present case, there is no
suppression of facts on behalf of the petitioner.
Chairman And Managing Director Fci vs Jagdish Balaram Bahira on 6 July, 2017
Brij Bhushan Singh Son Of Sri Satya ... vs Regional Higher Education Officer, ... on 5 May, 2005
(iv) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims & Ors., 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919,
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
(ii) Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Addl. Commissioner,
Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241,