Some anti-reservation petitioners had urged the State Backward Classes Commission, which recommended ten percent reservation in government jobs and education for the Maratha community, to be sued. Subsequently, the Commission was made respondent. However, the copy of the petition itself was not made available. The High Court took serious note of it on Wednesday and expressed displeasure at the action of the petitioners by saying that the hearing of the matter should not be delayed in this way.
At the same time, a special full bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh Puniwala clarified that the final hearing of the case will begin from August 5, ordering the Commission to file a consolidated reply to all the petitions by August 26.
The full bench had issued a notice to the State Backward Classes Commission headed by retired Justice Sunil Shukre last week. A hearing was held in this case on Wednesday. At that time, advocate general of the country R Venkataramani will appear on behalf of the commission, counsel for the commission Saket Mone told the court. Venkataramani told the court that he would file a detailed reply to the petitions on behalf of the commission.
Also, they sought time to file it. However, Mone pointed out to the court that the original petitioners did not provide a copy of the petition to the Commission. Taking cognizance of it, the court expressed displeasure with the action of the petitioners. At the same time, the Commission was ordered to make available the copy of the petitions immediately. Thereafter, the court directed the Commission to submit a consolidated affidavit on all the petitions.
Meanwhile, the petitions filed against and in support of reservation were heard for two months. However, one of the petitioners demanded to make the Commission a respondent in this matter. Anti-reservation petitioners have raised questions about the report of the commission, its findings, procedure and appointment of the commission. Therefore, the original petitioner sought to make the Commission a respondent. The demand was also supported by the government. There was a difference of opinion between the petitioners regarding making the Commission a respondent. However, in order not to delay the hearing of the case, the petitioners clarified that there is a consensus on making the Commission a respondent. Also, it was ordered to issue a notice and clarify the position.
Share
Tweet
