Bombay High Court

NIRJALA PUNJAJI CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The Court held that the Scrutiny Committee must decide the petitioner's proposal within four weeks, failing which it will be liable for aggravated contempt.

Summary

Petitioner Nirjala Punja... filed a contempt petition against the State of Maharashtra alleging that the Scrutiny Committee failed to decide her proposal within the time limit prescribed by the Court. The Court noted that the Committee had been divided into two parts, which caused the delay, and that the Committee later issued an apology and sought a six‑week extension. The Court treated this communication as an undertaking and, considering the prior delay, reduced the extension to four weeks, warning that failure to decide within that period would constitute aggravated contempt. The Court therefore ordered the Committee to decide the proposal within four weeks and disposed of the contempt petition. No substantive merits of the underlying proposal were addressed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay by the Scrutiny Committee in deciding the petitioner's proposal amounts to contempt of court
Whether the Committee's request for a six‑week extension can be accepted as a valid undertaking

Subjects

contempt of court
administrative delay
Scrutiny Committee
undertaking
aggravated contempt

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31084-DB

                                                                        375.2026CP

                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            21 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 375 OF 2026
                                     IN WP/7252/2025

                                   NIRJALA PUNJAJI CHAVAN
                                             VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                ...
                 Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sushant Chandrakant Yeramwar
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. D.S. Jape

                                        CORAM :      SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                     VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                        DATE     :   27.07.2026

                 P.C. :


                 1]       Learned A.G.P. on instructions submits that admittedly
                 the direction was issued for deciding the proposal of the
                 petitioner but since the Scrutiny Committee thereafter
                 divided into two parts, the tribe claim of the petitioner could
                 not be decided within the prescribed limit. Now the learned
                 A.G.P. placed on record communication dated 27.07.2026
                 issued by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee mentioning
                 the apology for not deciding the proposal within time limit
                 and then seeking time of six weeks for deciding the proposal.


                 2]       The said communication is taken as an undertaking to
                 this Court. However, due to the earlier delay, we deem it
                 appropriate that the proposal of the petitioner be decided
                 within further period of four weeks, failing which the
                                                 375.2026CP

                               2

Committee shall be responsible for aggravated form of
contempt. Petition is accordingly disposed of.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]            [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                           JUDGE
sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…