Disposed

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

Bombay HC6 Apr 2026WP/3518/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners holding 'Tadvi' Scheduled Tribe caste certificates in incorrect form sought issuance of certificates in Form 'C' under Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 for submission to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Court directed the Sub Divisional Officer, Gangakhed to decide the applications within one month, with surrender of original certificates and verification of genuineness.

What did the court decide?

Direction to SDO Gangakhed to decide applications for Form 'C' caste certificates within one month, petitioners to appear on 09.04.2026 and surrender original certificates.

Tadvipathan Altabkhan Imamkhan vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:14794-DB

¶2

1 35.WP.3518.26.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3518 OF 2026

¶5

TADVIPATHAN ALTABKHAN IMAMKHAN

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH

¶8

THE SECRETARY AND ANR

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 3596 OF 2026

¶11

TADVIPATHAN MUSKANKHANAM IMAMKHAN

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANR

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 3601 OF 2026

¶16

TADVIPATHAN TAYBABI IMAMKHAN VERSUS

¶17

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ANR

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gite Ravi Balasaheb AGP for Respondents: Mr. P.S. Patil

¶19

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

¶20

DATE : 06.04.2026

¶21

PER COURT:

¶22

Writ Petition No.3596/2026 and Writ Petition

¶23

No.3601/2026 are not on board, after mentioning taken on board.

¶24

2 35.WP.3518.26.odt

¶25

In all these writ petitions, the grievance raised is that the caste certificates issued to the petitioners of belonging to ‘Tadvi’ Scheduled Tribe were tried to be submitted before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for its verification. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee have insisted that the petitioners should submit the caste certificates in Form "C" postulated under the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. The petitioners accordingly have requested the respondent/Sub Divisional Officer, Gangakhed, District Parbhani to issue the caste certificates in Form "C" as contemplated under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. However, the same has not been issued and, therefore, these writ petitions.

¶26

After hearing the parties, we are of the considered view that the prayers made in the writ petitions are reasonable and capable of being granted. Therefore, we pass the following order:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) The respondent/Sub Divisional Officer, Gangakhed, District Parbhani is directed to decide the applications of the petitioners within a period of one month from today and the petitioners to approach the Respondent/S.D.O on 09.04.2026. The petitioners to

¶29

3 35.WP.3518.26.odt

¶30

surrender the original tribe certificate which is in

¶31

incorrect form.

¶32

(ii) We also make it clear that, if the earlier caste certificates of the petitioners are surrendered before the respondent/Sub-Divisional Officer before issuing corrected tribe certificates in Form "C" he should also test the genuineness of issuance of earlier caste certificates.

¶33

(iii) Writ Petitions stand disposed of.

¶34

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

¶35

habeeb/

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

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.

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.

Tbz Traders through Tabrez Alam vs Food and Safety and Standards Authority of India and Others