Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Nihar S/O Sharadchandra Dhurde vs State Of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. Of ... on 7 September, 2022 cites

Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 23 March, 2001

14. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had ignored the documents which shows that the petitioner's forefathers were residents of Nagpur prior to the deemed date. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar (supra) are applicable in the present case. In the light of the same the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is erroneous and liable to be set aside. There is ample material on record to show that the petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and belongs to 'Bari' community, therefore, writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 129 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Bir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board . on 30 August, 2018

Though learned Assistant Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh (supra), it appears that the issue involved in the petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court was "Whether a policy in furtherance of the enabling provision contend in Article 16(4) of the Constitution could extend the benefits conferred on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe enumerated in the Presidential Orders framed/issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the J.WP.3356.2022.odt 14 Constitution in respect of a State/Union Territory upon migrant Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe persons from another State/Union Territory?" In para Nos.33 and 34 of the said judgment it is crystal clear that the issue which was discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court was that if a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who had migrated to another State is to be given the benefit of reservation it will amount to depriving a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of Maharashtra by reducing the reservation ear marked for them. Therefore, Hon'ble Apex Court had in para No.34 held that it can be said that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any other State to which he migrates for the purpose of employment or education. In the present case, the issue before us is regarding the verification of the petitioner's caste, therefore, this decision on which learned Assistant Government Pleader is relied upon is not helpful.
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 173 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Preeti Gopalrao Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2012

He further relied upon Preeti Gopalrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 317, Bharat s/o Bhimrao Malakwade Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, J.WP.3356.2022.odt 9 Nagpur and anr. 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 946, Sagar Bhupal Malage Vs. Member/Chairman, Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur and ors. 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 319 and Prabhakar s/o Dnyanoba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2020(3) Mh.L.J. 467 and in Writ Petition No.6836 of 2013 (Prashant s/o Shamraoji Shende Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur and ors. ) decided on 14/12/2016 and Writ Petition No.5612 of 2018 (Kushalkumar s/o Motilal Bhaisare Vs. The President District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and ors.) decided on 15/07/2022 and submitted that the same issue is dealt by this Court at various Benches and it is held that such persons whose caste/tribe is recognised in both the States are entitled for the benefits of reservation. He submitted that on the basis of the similar documents his cousin uncle and cousin brother received the Caste Validity Certificate, therefore, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illogical and liable to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - R M Borde - Full Document

Babanrao Dnyanoba Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 April, 2017

He further relied upon Preeti Gopalrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 317, Bharat s/o Bhimrao Malakwade Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, J.WP.3356.2022.odt 9 Nagpur and anr. 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 946, Sagar Bhupal Malage Vs. Member/Chairman, Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur and ors. 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 319 and Prabhakar s/o Dnyanoba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2020(3) Mh.L.J. 467 and in Writ Petition No.6836 of 2013 (Prashant s/o Shamraoji Shende Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur and ors. ) decided on 14/12/2016 and Writ Petition No.5612 of 2018 (Kushalkumar s/o Motilal Bhaisare Vs. The President District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and ors.) decided on 15/07/2022 and submitted that the same issue is dealt by this Court at various Benches and it is held that such persons whose caste/tribe is recognised in both the States are entitled for the benefits of reservation. He submitted that on the basis of the similar documents his cousin uncle and cousin brother received the Caste Validity Certificate, therefore, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illogical and liable to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - A M Badar - Full Document

Shri. Sagar Bhupal Malage vs The Member / Chairman, Divisional Caste ... on 31 January, 2019

He further relied upon Preeti Gopalrao Kamble Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 317, Bharat s/o Bhimrao Malakwade Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, J.WP.3356.2022.odt 9 Nagpur and anr. 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 946, Sagar Bhupal Malage Vs. Member/Chairman, Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Kolhapur and ors. 2019(3) Mh.L.J. 319 and Prabhakar s/o Dnyanoba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2020(3) Mh.L.J. 467 and in Writ Petition No.6836 of 2013 (Prashant s/o Shamraoji Shende Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur and ors. ) decided on 14/12/2016 and Writ Petition No.5612 of 2018 (Kushalkumar s/o Motilal Bhaisare Vs. The President District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and ors.) decided on 15/07/2022 and submitted that the same issue is dealt by this Court at various Benches and it is held that such persons whose caste/tribe is recognised in both the States are entitled for the benefits of reservation. He submitted that on the basis of the similar documents his cousin uncle and cousin brother received the Caste Validity Certificate, therefore, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is illogical and liable to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Sonali Vitthalrao More Alias Sonali ... vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 1 April, 2021

This Court also J.WP.3356.2022.odt 16 in Writ Petition No.5549/2011 (Vijay s/o Vitthalrao Suryawanshi Vs. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur and anr.) decided on 16/09/2019 held that the ordinary place of residence cannot be considered to be a sole determinative factor for deciding the correctness or otherwise of the caste or tribe claim and several other factors are also necessary.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - S D Kulkarni - Full Document
1