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

2007 Supreme(Bom) 595

A.H.JOSHI, R.C.CHAVAN
Avinash Tulshiram Limje – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

R.C. Chavan, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard, as the petitions can be decided on the basis of contents of the petitions and annexures thereto, and returns filed on record.

2. The petitioners in these two petitions claim that both of them have been elected as Municipal Councillors from Wards No.16 and 18 of Bhandara Municipal Council, reserved for Scheduled Tribe. However, the document at page No.46 in Writ Petition No.903 of 2007 shows that the petitioner therein was Municipal Councillor of Ward No.16, whereas the document at page No.49 in Writ Petition No.904 of 2007 describes the petitioner as Municipal Councillor of Ward No.17, though she has signed as Councillor of Ward No.16.

3. Both the petitioners claim that they belong to Halba (Scheduled Tribe). Their caste claim was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which, by the impugned orders dated 20-2-2007, invalidated their caste claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed these petitions praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and a direction to the Collector not to disqualify the petitioners on the basis of invalidation of their caste claim.

4. We have heard Sh























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