Suman R. Pal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mr. Mihir Desai for the petitioner Mr. R.D. Rane, Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : F.I.F.I. CORAM : REBELLO & F.I. REBELLO & CORAM : REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2007 P.C. P.C.P.C. . The petitioner is a migrant and, therefore, not entitled for reservation in the State of Maharashtra. Benefit of reservation at local level is only for the residents in the State of Maharashtra and not migrants who are entitled for reservation in the State of their origin. The Committee has recorded that the petitioner’s father is from Uttar Pradesh. Once that be the case the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits in the State of Maharashtra even though there is long residence. Petition rejected. (F.I.REBELLO F.I.REBELLO, J) F.I.REBELLO R.M.SAVANT,J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J R.M.SAVANT,J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 09 Mar 2007. The bench was R M SAVANT, F I REBELLO R M SAVANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.