SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Bom) 96

C.S.DHARMADHIKARI, S.P.KURDUKAR, V.S.KOTWAL
Tanuja d/o Maganlal Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---In this petition the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to 'Bawa' tribe which is notified as Nomadic Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division Bombay, the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

2. Initially this writ petition was placed for hearing before the Division Bench. But in view of an apparent conflict in the decisions of this Court and a contention raised that the decision in (Vijay Shrichand Daulatani's v. State of Maharashtra ors.)1, 1985(2) Bombay Cases Reporter, 488, requires reconsideration, the matter came to be referred to a larger Bench. This is how this petition came to be placed before this Full Bench.

3. On the basis of the arguments advanced before the Division Bench as well as before us, the following questions arise for our consideration :

a) Whether 'Bawa' from Sindh can claim the benefit of entry Gosayi of its synonyms as included in the list of Nomadic Tribe vide Government Resolution dated 21st















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top