Bombay High Court
PRATAP MUKUNDRAO PHADKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the proceedings within six months and held that no further notice to the respondent was required.
Summary
The petitioner, Pratap Mukundrao Phadke, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee to decide a complaint against Shaikh Rijwan Chotubhai expeditiously. The petitioner argued that the Committee had already issued notices to both parties, and only a simple direction was needed. The Court observed that since notices were already issued, no additional notice to the respondent was necessary. It directed the Scrutiny Committee to resolve the proceedings within six months, considering the merits and maintainability of the case. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the said directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee requires a fresh notice to the respondent before proceeding.
- Whether the Court should direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the complaint within a specific time frame.
Subjects
- Writ Petition
- Scrutiny Committee
- expeditious disposal
- administrative law
- Caste Certificate
Judgment
(1)
940- W. P. 4256-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4256 OF 2026
1. Pratap Mukundrao Phadke,
Age:41 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Dhangar Galli, Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahilyanagar. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its department of
Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Revenue Complex, 1st Floor,
Near Bengal Chowk, Burud Galli,
Ahilyanagar
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Shirdi Tal. Rahata,
Dist. Ahilyanagar.
4. Shaikh Rijwan Chotubhai,
Age : 45 Years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Naikwadi Mohalla, Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahilyanagar ..RESPONDENTS
…..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Yuvraj Vijayrao Kakde
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 30, 2026
FINAL ORDER (PER ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J):-
1. Heard.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the original complainant for
(2)
940- W. P. 4256-2026.odt
a limited purpose for seeking direction to the respondent No.2
/Scrutiny Committee, Ahilyangar, to decide the said complaint filed
against the respondent No.4, expeditiously.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to
the complaint filed by the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee has
issued notice to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4.
4. We, therefore, find that since the Scrutiny Committee has
already issued notices to respondent No.4 as well as the petitioner and
since an innocuous prayer has been made for seeking direction to
decide the said proceedings, we do not find that notice is required to
be issued to respondent No.4.
5. In that view of the matter, the respondent/Scrutiny Committee
shall decide the proceedings, pursuant to the complaint filed by the
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of six months from today, in accordance with law and on its own
merits including the issue as regards the maintainability of the said
proceedings.
6. With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
YSK/
Checking your session…