ANWAR HUSAIN HISAMUDDIN SHAIKH vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

Case Type: NaN

Date of Judgment: 23-04-2015

Preview image for ANWAR HUSAIN HISAMUDDIN SHAIKH vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

Full Judgment Text

KJ                                                                    1/4                                                wp11430.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.11430 OF 2014
Mohammad Husain Hisamuddin Shaikh )... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )… Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11429 OF 2014
Miss.Misbah Mohammed Sadik )...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11449 OF 2014
Anwar Husain Hisamuddin Shaikh )...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.32911 OF 2014
Mohammed Afzal Dinmohammed Shaikh )...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )...Respondents
----
Mr.K.N.Kandekar a/w Mr.Sachin Kankal for petitioners.
Mr.V.N.Sagare AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
----
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:13:48 :::

KJ                                                                    2/4                                                wp11430.14
CORAM: ANOOP V.MOHTA &
K.R.SHRIRAM, JJ.
rd
DATED  : 23   April, 2015.
P.C. :
1 Rule returnable forthwith.   Heard finally by consent of 
parties.
2 We are inclined to dispose of present writ petitions as they 
are   belonged   to   one   family.   Paternal   relative   Dinmohamad   got 
validity certificate of the caste muslim Takari after due inquiry from 
the respondents and that has attained finality.   The issue is with 
regard to the petitioners' caste `muslim­takari' who are relatives of 
Dinmohamad.
3 The   following   chart   shows   their   relation   with 
Dinmohammed :­
Sr.NoWrit Petition No.Name of<br>petitionerValidity<br>Certificate<br>granted by<br>Nasik<br>Scrutiny<br>CommitteeRelation of<br>Petitioners<br>to whom<br>Validity is<br>granted
111430 of 2014Mohammed<br>Husain<br>Hisamuddin<br>ShaikhDinmohamm<br>ed<br>Hisamuddin<br>ShaikhReal brother
211429 of 2014Misbah<br>Mohammed<br>Sadik Shaikh…...do......Niece (Real<br>Brother's<br>Daughter)

::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:13:48 :::

KJ                                                                    3/4                                                wp11430.14
311449 of 2014Anwar<br>Husain<br>Hisamuddin<br>Shaikh…....do.......Real Brother
432911 of 2014Afzal<br>Dinmohamm<br>ed Shaikh…...do.......Son

4 There is no issue with regard to the relationship.   The 
submission   therefore,   all   these   cases   are   governed   by   following 
judgments of this court need to be accepted.  We have consistently 
held that the caste validity certificate issued in favour of one relative 
(paternal)   as   defined   under   the   Maharashtra   Scheduled   Castes, 
Scheduled   Tribes,   De­notified   Tribes   (Vimukta   Jatis),   Nomadic 
Tribes,   Other   Backward   Classes   and   Special   Backward   Category 
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act 
(2000) can be the foundation for other relatives for same claim. The 
respondent­authority thus cannot overlook the same unless there is a 
case  of fraud  or mis­representations.    There  is no such  material 
placed on record and/or any challenge raised and/or made to the 
certificate  issued to Dinmohammed.  Therefore, the other relatives 
thus cannot be denied the similar caste validity certificate, as done in 
the present case by overlooking the provisions of law and also the 
following judgments­
(1) Pranav Prakash Mandlik Vs. State of Maharashtra (2015(1) 
ALL MR 177)
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:13:48 :::

KJ                                                                    4/4                                                wp11430.14
(2) Mayur   s/o   Shamrao   Nannaware   Vs.   S.T.C.C.Scrutiny 
Committee (2014(1) MH.L.J.437)
(3) Apoorva Vs. D.C.C.S.Committee No.1 (2010 (6) MH.L.J 401)
(4) Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013(3) 
ALL MR 644)
The petitioners' caste claim, being relative from paternal 
side and similarly situated, we are inclined to grant.
5 Therefore, following order :­
ORDER
(a)  All writ petitions are allowed in terms of respective 
prayer clause­(a) ;  
(b)   The   respondents   to   issue   certificate   as   early   as 
possible preferably within eight weeks ;  
(c)   Rule made absolute accordingly ;
(d)  No costs.
  (K.R.SHRIRAM, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J)
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2024 17:13:48 :::