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

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1872

ANOOP V.MOHTA, MANISH PITALE
Mukesh Pandurang Bastav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Tanaji Jadhav & Priyanka Shaw.
For the Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Jadhav, AGP, Mr. P. M. Patil.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. In our country Tribe / Caste is a recognised basis for identifying groups and communities in order to implement the policy of affirmative action including reservation. It cannot be disputed that close blood relations and persons related to each other on the paternal side belong to one and the same caste / tribe. It cannot be that father belongs to a particular caste / tribe and the sons and daughters belong to another. Hence, uniformity of status in terms of belonging to a particular caste / tribe is necessary to be recognised, so as to ensure that members of the same family belonging to a caste / tribe to whom benefits of reservation and other affirmative action have been granted, are not deprived of such benefits.

2. In the instant petition, the grievance raised by the Petitioners, who are brothers, is - as to how can they be deprived of the status of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe - Mahadeo Koli, when the claims of their own sister, a cousin and uncle have been recognised as belonging to the said Scheduled Tribe and when findings in their ca


















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