WRIT PETITION NO: 6057/2007 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO: 398/2008 (Rameshwar Balkrishna Mohadikar v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee) Office Notes & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for Scrutiny Committee, the cause of action pertaining to prayer clause (i) does not survive. Keeping the other issues open, Writ Petition is disposed of.
Judgment
Smt. V.A.NAIK , JJ. DATED: 22nd January, 2008. *** Heard Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel for petitioner; Mr. N W Sambre, for Respondent no.1 and Shri Jachak for Respondents 2 and 3.
#2. Learned counsel for petitioner has pressed only prayer clause (i) in the present Petition and prayed that the issues which are raised in the petition and pertaining to Prayer Clauses (ii) to (iv) may be kept open. Shri N.W.Sambre, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee, makes a statement that the caste claim of the petitioner is referred to the Respondent No.1 - Committee on 17.12.2007 by the petitioner, and as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Nomadic Tribes ( VJs), Nomadic Tribes, Special backward Classes and Special Backward 2 Category ( Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, the Committee is expected to decide the same within a period of six months.
#3. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for Scrutiny Committee, the cause of action pertaining to prayer clause (i) does not survive. Keeping the other issues open, Writ Petition is disposed of.
#4. sahare Civil Application is also disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 22 Jan 2008. The bench was V A NAIK.
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.