Manas Vinod Chaudhari Through Guardian Vinod Dinkar Chaudhari v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:7450-DB 949-wp-10219-2024.odt (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10219 OF 2024 Manas S/o Vinod Chaudhari, Age: 17 years, Occu.: Education, Since Minor, through his natural guardian father Shri Vinod S/o Dinkar Chaudhari, Age: 45 years, Occu.: Service, R/o: At Khandale, Post Mondhale, Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

..Petitioner

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 2.

The District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Social Justice Bhavan, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon-425001 Through its Member Secretary.

..Respondents ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Bolkar Yogesh B. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.S. Shinde ...

CORAM : S.G. MEHARE & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 12, 2025 ORDER :

1.

Heard the respective counsels.

2.

The petitioner's grievance is that he was not available when the vigilance was proposed. He did not get time to rely upon the vigilance of the validity holders of the family members. Therefore, opportunity has not been granted to him to establish his

949-wp-10219-2024.odt (2) caste validity claim. Admittedly, no vigilance was conducted in the matter nor the petitioner relied on the vigilance of the family members who have been granted validity. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the matter may be relegated to the Caste Scrutinty Committee. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 14.08.2024 stands quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is relegated to respondent no.2 i.e. Caste Scrutiny Committee for deciding the matter afresh after conducting the vigilance, if required and granting opportunity to the petitioner to put his claim according to law.

(iv) The Committee should endeavour to decide the claim of the petitioner within three months from today.

(v) In the meantime, the college should not take any coercive action against the petitioner for want of validity. (vi) No order as to costs.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//