MADHAV S/O KESHAV SURYAWANSHI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECY. TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND ANR.
/3402/2026 · 2026-06-17
Nivedita Prakash Mehta, Urmila Joshi Phalke
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1188 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 1188 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 14-wp-3402-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 3402 OF 2026 Madhav S/o Keshav Suryawanshi Versus State of Maharashtra through Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Gopal G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Amit Chutke, AGP for the respondent/State.
CORAM :
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026. Heard.
2. The petitioner has sought a narrowly tailored relief in the present petition to a limited prayer, namely, for issuance of a direction to respondent No. 2–Committee to decide the petitioner's caste claim within a stipulated period.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 2–Committee, on instructions, submits that the petitioner's caste claim shall be decided within a period of two months.
4. In view of the aforesaid statement, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2–Committee to decide the petitioner's caste claim as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within a period of two months from today, in accordance with law. SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:7709-DB
2 14-wp-3402-26.odt
5. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's caste claim, and the same shall be decided independently on its own merits.
[JUDGE]
[JUDGE]
SKNair