Pathan Ahmer Vaquas Bismillaha Khan vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

AGP have tried to advance the submissions on merit, including referring to the document annexed with the writ petition as well as the record produce for our perusal, however, we find that the record depicts that to the vigilance cell inquiry report submitted by the vigilance cell, the petitioner has filed his reply. Along with the reply, the petitioner has placed on record the school extract of his cousin uncle namely Zahur Ahmed, showing his caste as ‘Tadvi’. After perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any reference or discussion about the said document which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is pertaining to the year 1952.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner also try to produce across the bar the copy of Nikahnama which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is the oldest document having probative value, however, it appears that this so called Nikahanama which is sought to be placed on record for the first time before this Court is not the part of record before the Scrutiny Committee.

¶25

Learned AGP fairly concedes that so far as the document placed on record by the petitioner along with the reply filed to the vigilance cell inquiry do not find place in the impugned order nor there is any discussion about the same. He therefore submits that,

¶26

3 78.WP.5903.25.odt

¶27

the matter needs to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee so that this document can be considered. So far as the copy of Nikahnama which is sought to be placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, learned AGP further submits that even this document can also be produced before the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee may consider its genuineness. He therefore submits that, the matter may be remanded back for fresh consideration.

¶28

After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP, we find that the school extract of petitioner’s cousin uncle namely Zahur Ahmed produced by the petitioner along with the reply filed to the vigilance cell report has not even been referred in the impugned order and in that view of the matter, we find that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee. We are also of the view that the Nikahnama which is sought to be placed on record before this Court for the first time can also be considered by the Scrutiny Committee after ascertaining its genuineness. We, therefore, are inclined to allow the writ petition partly by remanding the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. We therefore pass the following order :

¶29

4 78.WP.5903.25.odt

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

I. The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶32

II. The impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by respondent – Scrutiny Committee, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶33

III. The matter is remanded back to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee to decide the same afresh after considering the documents as stated above. Needless to state that the scrutiny committee may decide the tribe claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶34

IV. We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on merits and the scrutiny committee shall decide the tribe claim after adopting the appropriate procedure including conducting a fresh vigilance cell inquiry.

¶35

V. In peculiar facts and circumstances, we expect the respondent – Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of ten (10) months from today.

¶36

5 78.WP.5903.25.odt

¶37

IV. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed

¶38

of. Pending civil applications are disposed of.

¶39

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)

¶40

habeeb/

Pathan Ahmer Vaquas Bismillaha Khan v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pathan Ahmer Vaquas Bismillaha Khan v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ganesh Maroti Jagtap vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sumit Sunil Thakur vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Anr.

Saloni Sanjay Kottawad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Tadvipathan Altabkhan Imamkhan vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Pathan Ahmer Vaquas Bismillaha Khan vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Shivprasad Ganpat Manntalwad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.