RUPALI YASHWANT THAKUR vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

LSP 1 908 wp 5030.06.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 5030 of 2006 Rupali Yashwant Thakur … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents. Mr. R.K.Mendadkar a/w. Priyanka Shaw, Jayshree Mendadkar, Siddhant Sawai, Jagdish Kawale, Prajakta Pashtre Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mrs. D.S.Deshmukh, AGP for the Respondents-State. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 13th January 2026. Oral Judgment (Per M.S. Karnik, J) : We have heard Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Walimbe, the learned AGP appearing for Digitally signed by LATA the Respondents-State. LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: 2026.01.21 16:45:11 +0530 2. Our attention is invited to order dated 12 th December 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Brief background of the matter is as follows: The rejection of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition before this LSP 2 908 wp 5030.06.doc Court, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 12th December 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the order passed by this Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The relevant paragraphs from the order dated 12th December 2025 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference. “1. The applications for substitution are allowed after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any, subject to all just exceptions. Applications for intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The issue that falls for consi