Sayyad Rauf Sayyad Noor vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to correct the nomenclature of respondent No.2. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶14

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28/10/2025 passed by respondent No. 2 / Scrutiny Committee,

¶15

2 51 WP 4152-26

¶16

whereby the petitioner’s tribe claim has been disposed of for nonprosecution.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing at Vaijapur, Taluka Vaijapur, District Aurangabad and that the address provided in the proposal submitted to the respondent Scrutiny Committee was also of Vaijapur. He further submits that although the petitioner resides at Vaijapur, the notices were perhaps sent to an address at Nanded, as a result of which the petitioner did not receive the same.

¶18

Be that as it may, we find that since the matter pertains to the social status of the petitioner, it ought to be decided on its own merits. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the writ petition by remanding the matter back to the respondent / Scrutiny Committee for deciding the same afresh, after granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. We, however, make it clear that the petitioner shall extend full cooperation in the proceedings for verification of his tribe claim. We, therefore, pass the following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

A) The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶21

B) The impugned order dated 28/10/2025 passed by the respondent / Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶22

3 51 WP 4152-26

¶23

C) The matter is remanded back to the respondent / Scrutiny Committee to decide the same afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

D) The petitioner is directed to furnish his mobile number, e-mail ID, if any, and his correct and complete address to the respondent / Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of correspondence.

¶25

E) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 27/04/2026 at 11:00 a.m.

¶26

F) We make it clear that if the petitioner does not extend full cooperation, the respondent Scrutiny Committee shall be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶27

G) With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

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

¶29

VS Maind/-

Sayyad Rauf Sayyad Noor v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Rauf Sayyad Noor v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

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

Similar cases

Mahendra Chandrakant Thakur vs State of Maharashtra through Tribal Department and Other

Shivraj Balasaheb Talware vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

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

Sachin Manik Pandule vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Malkhansing Mangalsingh Sable vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bhagwan Vishnupant Thombre vs the State of Maharashtra and Another