Court : Mumbai Nagpur
b.r. gavai, j. 1. heard. 2. rule. rule is made returnable forthwith. heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. the petitioner has approached this court praying for quashing and setting aside the reversion order dated 02.06.2014 issued by respondent no.3. 4. the facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are as under:- the petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk against the vacancy reserved for the scheduled tribe on the basis of his claim that he belongs to halba which is recognised as scheduled tribe in the state of maharashtra. the petitioner came to be promoted on 20.05.1992 as senior clerk and was again promoted as head clerk on 24.08.2000. the case of the petitioner came to be referred to the scheduled tribe caste certificate scrutiny committeerespondent no.2 herein. vide order dated 25.02.2008, the claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated on the basis of the police vigilance cell report. the said order of invalidation was challenged by the petitioner before this court by way of writ petition no. 4690/2010. the division bench of this court vide order dated 19.11.2010 remitted the matter back to the scrutiny committee for reconsideration and directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the caste claim of the petitioner is decided. by the impugned order dated 02.06.2014, the petitioner has been reverted to the post of senior clerk on the ground of non-submission of the validity certificate. being aggrieved thereby, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.r. gavai, j.) 1. rule. rule is made returnable forthwith. heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. the petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the order dated 21/01/2016, thereby respondent no.1-committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. the petitioner, however, has given up his claim with regard to challenge the order disputing his caste invalidation and has now restricted his claim in the present petition only for protecting his service. 4. the petitioner, claiming to be belonging "halba-scheduled tribe", came to be appointed by respondent nos.2 and 3 in the year 1997. since the petitioner claimed to be belonging scheduled tribe, his caste claim was referred to respondent no.1-committee for scrutiny. the committee has found that the petitioner belongs to "halba-koshti" and not "halba-scheduled tribe". 5. be that as it may. the larger bench of this court in the case of arun s/o vishwanath sonone vs. state of maharashtra and others - 2015 (1) mh.l.j. 457 has held that all such persons, who have been appointed in service long back, would be entitled to protection of their services on the ground of length of service. however, it has been held that in case, if there is finding of practicing fraud while securing employment, such employee would not be entitled to get the benefit of said protection. 6. undisputedly, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that there is no finding of fraud .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: 1. rule. heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. petitioner, the maharashtra state wakf board, aurangabad through its chief executive officer, has filed present writ petitions challenging orders dated 7th march 2015 rejecting its application for intervention in misc. applications no. 8 of 2014 and 39 of 2014. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submits that the wakf board is constituted under section 13 of the waqf act, 1995 and by virtue of section 32, the power of general superintendence of all auqafs in the state of maharashtra vest in the petitioner board and it is the duty of the petitioner board to ensure that the auqafs under its superintendence are properly maintained, controlled and administered. he submits that hazrat baba tajuddin trust is a waqf, duly notified in the gazette notification dated 30.12.2004 and, therefore, the joint charity commissioner will cease to have jurisdiction in the matter. the waqf board wants to assist the joint charity commissioner. 4. as against this, mr a. c. dharmadhikari submits that it is now hazrat baba tajuddin trust ? and not tajabag committee ? and, therefore, petitioner s contention that the joint charity commissioner has no jurisdiction, bears no merit. he submits that the waqf board has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is the charity commissioner which alone has jurisdiction over the matter. according to mr dharmadhikari, it is not muslim community people who have participation in the affairs of the trust, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. both these applications have been filed by the respective applicants with the following prayers: criminal application no.446/2012 (i) to quash and set aside the f.i.r. no.2/2012 dated 27.06.2012 registered by the non applicant police station, karanja, dist. washim for offence under sections 389, 420, 504, 506, 341 read with section 34 of the i.p.c. and section 3 (8) (x) and 3 (2) (v) under the prevention of atrocities act and the complaint/application under section 156 (3) of cr.p.c. filed by the non applicant no.2 and the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the learned j.m.f.c. in cc no.56/2012 in the interest of justice. criminal application no.642/2012 (i) quash the impugned first information report no.2/2012 dated 27.06.2012 registered with police station, karanja (non-applicant no.1) for the offence punishable u/s 389, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 of indian penal code and 3(8)(x), 3(2)(v) of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) act and the complaint under section 156 (3) of cr.p.c. filed by non-applicant no.2 and order dated 25.06.2012. ? 2. the applicants in both these applications have invoked powers of this court under section 482 of the cr. p. c. particularly in the light of decision in the case of state of haryana and others ..vs. .bhajanlal and others, 1992 air 604 as argued before us. facts: 3. the applicants are the members of the choure family of karanja lad and as contended by non applicant no.2-complainant they are very rich landlords of that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: 1. rule. heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. this writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 17.10.2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and in turn setting aside order passed by the additional commissioner in proceedings under section 247 of the maharashtra land revenue code, 1966 (for short the said code). the respondent no.4 is a society that is running a high school and junior college. it made an application for allotment of land admeasuring 0.47 r at survey no. 386 in terms of government resolution dated 30.06.1992. on 08.11.2007 the collector allotted aforesaid land to the respondent no.4 society for being used to accommodate the school building and playground. being aggrieved the present petitioners filed an appeal under section 247 of the code. in appeal, the additional commissioner found that a water body existed in part of field survey no.386 and the nistarpatrak reflected such user. however said entry has been deleted and the land in question came to be allotted to the respondent no.1 without following the procedure prescribed by section 20(2) of the code. the allotment was therefore set aside. in appeal under section 248 of the code filed by respondent no.4, the state government held that all adjoining lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and it was likely that the water body could give rise to contiguous diseases. on that count the order passed by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.r. gavai, j.) 1. the appellant has approached this court being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the additional sessions judge, washim in sessions trial no.97 of 2010, dt.27.8.2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs.1000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 of the indian penal code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of rs.2000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. the prosecution case, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus : the field of deceased sudhakar banarase was adjacent to the field of original accused nos.1 and 2 within the jurisdiction of police station, karanja. on 11.9.2010, on the day of ganesh chaturthi, the cow belonging to deceased sudhakar had entered into the field of the accused. therefore, both the accused, who are father and son, beat sudhakar by fist and kick blows during day time. the nephew of sudhakar namely rahul @ ankush bandopant gulhane (pw-1) was taking education at karanja and due to holiday, he had been to the house of his maternal uncle sudhakar. at around 5.30 p.m. madhukar, who is grandfather of rahul, disclosed the incident of assault on sudhakar by accused .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
common judgment: 1. in all these appeals preferred under section 20 of the coal bearing areas (acquisition and development) act, 1957 ( said act for short) the challenge is to the award passed by the special tribunal constituted under section 14(2) of the said act to determine the question of enhancement of compensation as provided under section 73 of the said act, to the extent it refuses to grant interest as contemplated by section 34 of the land acquisition act, which according to the appellants is made applicable by circular dated 12th february, 1986 issued by the government of india, ministry of energy, department of coal. in all these matters the claim is for the interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum for a initial period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum after expiry of period of one year till the amount of compensation is paid or deposited by the acquiring body. 2. the point for determination in all these appeals is as under: whether the appellant claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and at the rate of fifteen percent per annum for subsequent years, till the payment or deposit of the amount of compensation by the acquiring body, in terms of section 34 of the land acquisition act, 1894? 3. all these cases arise out of the acquisition under the coal bearing areas (acquisition and development) act, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
common judgment: 1. in all these appeals preferred under section 20 of the coal bearing areas (acquisition and development) act, 1957 ("said act" for short) the challenge is to the award passed by the special tribunal constituted under section 14(2) of the said act to determine the question of enhancement of compensation as provided under section 73 of the said act, to the extent it refuses to grant interest as contemplated by section 34 of the land acquisition act, which according to the appellants is made applicable by circular dated 12th february, 1986 issued by the government of india, ministry of energy, department of coal. in all these matters the claim is for the interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum for a initial period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum after expiry of period of one year till the amount of compensation is paid or deposited by the acquiring body. 2. the point for determination in all these appeals is as under: whether the appellant - claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of taking possession for a period of one year and at the rate of fifteen percent per annum for subsequent years, till the payment or deposit of the amount of compensation by the acquiring body, in terms of section 34 of the land acquisition act, 1894? 3. all these cases arise out of the acquisition under the coal bearing areas (acquisition and development) .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.r. gavai, j.) 1. both these appeals take exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, khamgaon in sessions case no.79 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. sections 148 and 149 of the indian penal code and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of rs.5,000/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. the prosecution case, as could be gathered from the facts of the case, is thus : all the accused, the deceased and the witnesses are relatives. on 11.4.2010, there was a marriage of cousin of raju bhaidas bhat (pw-5) at village paladhi in jalgaon district. the accused were also invited for the said marriage. after marriage ceremony, when lunch was served to the guests, oral altercation took place between jambhir bhat and accused no.2 bhikaji @ bhikan suryabhan kharat on account of maintaining registers of pedigree. it is to be noted that the accused as well as the deceased and the witnesses were 'bhat' by profession i.e. the profession in which the pedigree registers of various communities are maintained. raju bhat (pw-5) made an attempt to intervene, which was not liked by accused no.2 bhikan. he got annoyed and slapped raju bhat in front of people. father of raju bhat, deceased bhaidas bhat and brother of ajay came and separated the quarrel. however, the other people pacified them. 3. on 16.4.2010, the marriage of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.r. gavai, j.) rule. rule returnable forthwith. heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. the petitioner was appointed as junior scientific assistant by respondent no.3 against the post reserved for scheduled tribe since the petitioner claims to belonging to "halba" (scheduled tribe). 3. it is not in dispute that the petitioner's claim of belonging to "halba" (scheduled tribe) has been invalidated. the limited relief claimed in the petition is that since government of india vide office memorandum dated 10/8/2010 has taken a decision to protect the services of employees, who were appointed against the posts reserved for scheduled tribe on the basis of their claim of belonging to "halba" (scheduled tribe), if such appointments have become final on or before 28/11/2000, the petitioner's services may be protected. 4. it is not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment was on the basis of his claim of belonging to "halba" (scheduled tribe). it is also not in dispute that the petitioner's appointment has become final prior to 28/11/2000. 5. when a policy decision has been taken by the central government, all the bodies under it are bound to follow the same. in that view of the matter, we find that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. it is directed that the respondent nos.2 and 3 shall not disturb the services of the petitioner on the basis of invalidation of his claim of belonging to "halba" (scheduled tribe). it is further .....
Tag this Judgment!