Imlesh Jairam Yadav vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Welfare Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Imlesh Jairam Yadav vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Welfare Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 24.04.2025 quashed and set aside; Petitioner directed to remain present before Respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m.; appeal to be decided afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order, within twelve weeks of communication of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2), which recorded the Petitioner's absence at the hearing of his caste-certificate appeal, should be quashed and the appeal heard afresh on merits. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2-Additional District Collector is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is directed to remain present before Respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m.

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the Petitioner's appeal afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner.ratio¶41
Respondent No. 2 shall decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.ratio¶42
The appeal shall be decided within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.), 03 February 2026: Disposed of Civil Writ Petition No. 15357 of 2025 filed by Imlesh Jairam Yadav challenging the appellate order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Additional District Collector (Respondent No. 2) on his statutory appeal against the Competent Authority's decision dated 24.12.2024 refusing him a caste certificate as belonging to Ahir caste under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. The impugned order had recorded the Petitioner's absence on the hearing date, whereas the petition stated that the Petitioner, alongwith his advocate, was present but was not allowed to attend on the ground that advocates are not permitted in such proceedings. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directed the Petitioner to remain present before Respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m., and directed Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order, within twelve weeks of communication of the order. The Court expressly left open the question whether the Petitioner has the right to be represented through a lawyer, observing that this contention can be raised before the Appellate Authority when the occasion arises. Pending interim applications stood disposed of.

WP 15357 of 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15357 OF 2025

Imlesh Jairam Yadav

Aged 40 years, Resident of Room No. 1 Azad Chawl, New Link Road, Near Shiv Temple, Anand Nagar, Jogeshwari, Mumbai.

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra Through its Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

Additional District Collector, Administrative building having its office at 10^th floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.

Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District having it’s office at Andheri, Mumbai.

Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Andheri Taluka Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai. ...Respondents

*****

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar - Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. Reena A. Salunkhe – AGP for the Respondent-State

SEEMA Digitally signedby SEEMA KSHITIJ KSHITIJ YELKARDate: 2026.02.06 YELKAR 18:18:39 +0530

1/4

Seema

WP 15357 of 2025.doc

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 03^rd FEBRUARY 2026

P. C. :-

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent-State.

The impugned order was passed by the Appellate Authority on 24.04.2025. The appeal was filed before the Respondent No. 2 by the Petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the Competent authority dated 24.12.2024, refusing to issue a caste certificate as belonging to Ahir caste under the category of Other Backward Classes (In short O.B.C.) caste.

The impugned order records that the Petitioner was not present on the date of hearing i.e. 24.04.2025. In the petition, it is stated that the Petitioner alongwith his advocate was present before the Respondent No. 2-Appellate Authority. However, he was not allowed to attend the proceedings, on the ground that advocate is not allowed to appear in such cases.

Learned AGP supported the impugned order. We have heard

2/4

Seema

WP 15357 of 2025.doc

learned counsel.

The Petitioner’s application for issuance of the Caste certificate was rejected by the Competent authority. The statutory appeal was preferred before the Respondent No. 2 -Appellate authority by the Petitioner against the order rejecting the application for grant of Caste certificate.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner would remain present on 16^th February 2026 at 11.00 a.m. before the Respondent No. 2 alongwith a copy of this order and would co-operate with the Appellate authority.

The impugned order only records that Petitioner was not present and therefore, we are not going into the question as to whether the Petitioner has the right to be represented through a lawyer or not. This contention can be raised by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, when the occasion so arises.

Suffice it to observe that the opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioner to contest the appeal on merits.

Hence, the order:-

3/4

Seema

WP 15357 of 2025.doc

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2-Additional District Collector is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Petitioner to remain present before the Respondent No. 2 on 16.02.2026 at 11.00 a.m..

(iii) Respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal of the Petitioner afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner.

(iv) Respondent No. 2 shall decide the appeal without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

(v) The Appeal be decided within a period of twelve weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

4/4

Seema