Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)Anandkumar N. Patil, Meher Pesi ... vs Maharashtra University Of Health ... on 25 February, 2003
The view of the Scrutiny Committee is ex
facie contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Jaywant Dilip Pawar (supra).
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976
Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
Vs. Milind Khatware & Ors. (supra) has held that the Scheduled Tribe
orders must be read as it is. Since in the First Presidential Order, it is
clearly provided that 'Thakur' since 1950 is included in the list of
Scheduled Tribes, neither State Government nor Courts or Tribunals or
any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of Scheduled Tribes
specified in the Notification issued under Clause 1 of Article 342. In our
view, the Scrutiny Committee thus could not have rejected the caste
claim of the petitioner by holding that there was different class or or
group of "Thakur" as "Non-tribal Thakur".
Motilal Namdeo Pawar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 22 December, 2017
In our view, the facts before
this court in case of Motilal N. Pawar (supra) squarely applies to the
facts of this case. We are respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Narendra Dhudku Thakur vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 27 June, 2003
In so far as the submission of the learned Additional Government
Pleader that there being no perversity in the impugned finding recorded
by the Scrutiny Committee and thus such finding cannot be interfered
with by this Court by exercising powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is concerned, in view of the fact that various
findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are ex facie contrary to the
principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court and
also contrary to the entry at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second Schedule
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act,
1976, this Court has ample power to set aside the said perverse findings
of facts as well as the order being perverse.
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
39. This court in the said judgment did not accept the view of the
Scrutiny Committee holding that the Petitioner therein was not from the
area where the "Thakurs" were found in namely, 25 tahsils and 5 districts.
Amol Narayan Wakkar And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 14 September, 2004
vi) Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Amol
Narayan Wakkar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2005
(1) Mh.L.J. 798;