Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
In the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, , the Supreme Court laid down that the Kolis have been declared to be O.B.C. in the State of Maharashtra. That Kolis are fishermen and they live mainly in the coastal region of Maharashtra whereas Mahadeo Kolis are not a sub-caste of Kolis. In 1942, the Bombay Government passed
a Resolution by which Mahadeo Koli came to be notified as Scheduled Tribe. In the Presidential Order, 1950 the said position was reiterated. In 1976 Amendment Act, there was no substantial change except for removing the area restriction. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court has laid down that the assumption of the Bombay High Court in the case of Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade that Mahadeo Koli was recognized for the first time under the 1976 Amendment Act was not correct and the Mahadeo Kolis were recognized as Scheduled Tribe even prior to 1976. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in the Marathwada region, Kolis were recognized as Mahadeo Kolis only after 1978. The contention of the learned Advocate that as a consequence of the Presidential Order of 1978, the Kolis in Marathwada region became Mahadeo Kolis, is far-fetched and cannot be accepted as the main intention behind the Presidential Order of 1978 was to remove the area restrictions and not to correct the caste structure from OBC to Scheduled Tribe. In any event, even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, still, on facts, the petitioner's record shows that in the school record change has been effected only after 1978. That the entry standing against the name of the petitioner has been altered by the Head Master in 1988. Hence, on facts, we do not find any merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976
In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vandana d/o Narayan (supra) is also applicable to the present case.
S. Nagarajan vs The District Collector,Salem & Ors on 13 January, 1997
In the case of S. Nagrajan v. District Collector, Salem, , the Supreme Court has laid down that where the Collector, after detailed consideration of the evidence placed before him, concluded that the candidate was not a member of Scheduled Tribe, the Court under Article 226 should not interfere as it is not a Court of Appeal. In that matter, the Supreme Court held that a single Judge of the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the candidate's father was in Government service and he did not claim status of Scheduled Tribe as he belonged to a forward caste. In that matter, an interpolation in the school record was detected. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court observed that, in such cases, High Court under Article 226 should not intervene because by interpolation of the documents the candidate cannot claim the status of Scheduled Tribe.
Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure vs State Of Maharashtra &. Others on 15 March, 1996
Mr. Talekar, however, relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatrilaxmi B. Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra, , in which the Supreme Court came to the conclusion on the facts of the case that the Scrutiny Committee had failed 'to consider the decision of the Assistant Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department in respect of the candidate's paternal cousin Shri Abinash Nagpure and in the circumstances the decision of the Committee was set aside.
Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Narayan Deoji Koli vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 23 November, 1989
In the circumstances, the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Narayan Koli (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. We may also mention that in the case of Madhav, the Appellate Authority has also relied upon the Certificate in favour of Laxmi which, as stated hereinabove, is not reliable. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Authorities below.
1