The Maharashtra government on Monday informed the Bombay high court that it has not yet passed a resolution or taken a cabinet decision to provide 16 per cent reservation in government jobs and educational institutions for Marathas.
This was submitted by advocate general Darius Khambata before a division bench of Abhay Oka and AS Chandurkar, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the announcement last week about the reservation.
On June 25, the state government announced that it had approved a proposal to provide reservation for Marathas and 5 per cent for Muslims.
The announcement was challenged by former journalist Ketan Tirodkar, who has stated in the PIL that Marathas were wrongly categorised as 'socially and educationally backward'. He has also stated that Maratha is not a caste but comprise a linguistic group.
The advocate general explained that any proposal could be implemented only a decision was taken by the cabinet and a resolution is passed. This was not done as yet and therefore the PIL was premature.
The court took Khambata's statement on record and asked the government to file an affidavit in this regard by July 9.
Tirodkar has also stated in the PIL that Marathas are a dominant community, not a backward group. Apart from chief minister Prithviraj Chavan and deputy chief Minister Ajit Pawar, a number of education barons like DY Patil, Patangrao Kadam, Kamal Kishore Kadam and the Pawars who run Vidya Pratishthan belonged to the Maratha community.
"It's the same scenario in the case of sugar co-operatives and co-operative banks. 85 per cent of sugar factories are owned/controlled by Marathas – (late) Vasantdada Patil, Rajarambapu Patil, the Vikhe-Patils and Pawars," reads the PIL.
The PIL further contends that nearly 75 per cent of the land in the state is owned by Marathas. "Between 1962 and 2004, over 1,200 MLAs of over 2,000 MLAs, i.e. 55 per cent, have been Marathas. More than 72 per cent co-operative institutions are controlled by Marathas," Tirodkar states in the PIL.
He also argued that the state government's decision violated a Supreme Court order which made it clear that the total reservations could not cross 50 per cent.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}