Purushottam S/O Ishwar Hakande v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Ministry Of Tribal Welfare Mumbai And Others

WP3102-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3102/2016 (PURUSHOTTAM ISHWAR HAKANDE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.C. Phadnis h/f Shri V.S. Kukday, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Joshi, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3.

CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 24 , 2016.

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the caste validity certificate granted in favour of the respondent no.4 by the Scrutiny Committee.

The petitioner claims to be the member of the Gram Panchayat. According to the petitioner, on the basis of a wrongful and false claim of the respondent no.4 that he belongs to Mahar Caste (Scheduled Castes), the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the claim of the respondent no.4.

The petitioner would not have a locus standi to file the writ petition. The petitioner merely claims to be the voter in the Gram Panchayat. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had contested the election against the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 is elected on the basis of a false claim. A person like the petitioner would not be entitled to file a writ petition and challenge the caste validity certificate granted in favour of a third person.

In view of the aforesaid, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE