Allowed

Amol Ramlal Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC23 Jan 2026WP/15702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Division Bench, Writ Petition No. 15702 of 2025, decided 23.01.2026 — Amol Ramlal Bagul v. State of Maharashtra & Others. Scheduled Tribe claim verification ('Thakur') dismissed by Scrutiny Committee for non-prosecution after show-cause notices; writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 12.12.2025 quashed and set aside; tribe claim restored to original posit

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.12.2025 of the respondent/Scrutiny Committee rejecting the tribe claim for non-prosecution quashed and set aside; petitioner's tribe claim restored to its original position; pe

Amol Ramlal Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:3469-DB

¶2

1 979.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

979 WRIT PETITION NO. 15702 OF 2025

¶5

AMOL RAMLAL BAGUL

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.Wagh Mukulanand R. AGP/APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. N.T. Bhagat

¶9

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 23.01.2026

¶11

FINAL ORDER : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

¶12

. Heard.

¶13

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is taking an exception to the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee by which the proposal seeking verification of his tribe claim of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe has been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not keep track of the proceedings nor the petitioner at any point of time received the showcause notices issued by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has observed that despite several show-cause notices issued to the petitioner, he remained absent and thus, the

¶15

2 979.doc

¶16

petitioner is not interested to pursue the tribe claim. He submits that the impugned order is erroneous and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

¶17

Per contra, the learned AGP submits that the order itself depicts that the respondent/Scrutiny Committee has issued several show-cause notices to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing his tribe claim. He therefore, urged that the respondent/Scrutiny Committee has rightly passed the impugned order thereby dismissing the tribe claim of the petitioner for non-prosecution.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP, we find that the impugned order depicts that several show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner and still the petitioner did not bother to pursue his tribe claim. Be that as it may, since the matter pertains to social status of the petitioner, we find it expedient in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to pursue his tribe claim on merits.

¶19

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow this Writ Petition. Hence, we pass following order :

¶20

ORDER

¶21

i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶22

ii) The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee thereby rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner for non-prosecution is

¶23

3 979.doc

¶24

hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶25

iii) The tribe claim of the petitioner shall stand restored to its original position.

¶26

iv) We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee on 09.02.2026 and shall extend full-cooperation in expeditious decision of his tribe claim.

¶27

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

¶28

vsj..

Amol Ramlal Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Ramlal Bagul v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases