Kum. Swati Dattatraya Dahe v. The State of Maharashtra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
2.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribe, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category Classes Divisional Caste Certificates Scrutiny Aurangabad Committee No.3, Latur.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
(Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be served through the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)
Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents ..... ..... 2
CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 29th June, 2010
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER HARDAS, J.):
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ to respondent No.2 to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent No.3 to forthwith issue caste certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Rajput Bhamta – Vimukta Jati.
The application submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner has filed an appeal which is said to be pending. According to the petitioner, this Court had allowed Writ Petition Nos.6825/2009 and 6838/2009 in respect of the cousins of the petitioner and had directed the issuance of the caste certificates to them. Since the appeal is pending and since the Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the application of the petitioner, at this stage, we 3 cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue the caste certificate to the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, required to be dismissed in so far as prayer clause (C) is concerned. As regards prayer clause (B) to the petition, we direct the respondent/ Scrutiny Committee to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within eight weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.
Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.)
(P.V. HARDAS, J.)
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.