Bombay High Court
GIRISH LAXMAN SURYAWANSHIversusSECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Court held that there was substantial compliance with its order and the delay did not amount to contempt, leading to the disposal of the contempt petition.
Summary
The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging that a decision dated 17 June 2022, which disposed of their representation made on 27 April 2017, was never communicated to them. They contended that the decision was not rendered within the time prescribed by the Court's order of 3 December 2021. The State, through its Additional Government Pleader, explained that the delay was due to the need to obtain information from various departments and there was no willful defiance of the Court's order. The Court observed that there was substantial compliance with its earlier order and that the mere delay should not impede the contempt proceedings, especially since the petitioners could challenge the 17 June 2022 decision in the appropriate forum. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition without making any finding of contempt, leaving the merits of the 17 June 2022 decision open for future challenge.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' claim that the failure to communicate the decision constitutes contempt of court
- Whether the delay in deciding the representation amounts to willful defiance of the Court's order
Subjects
- contempt of court
- delay
- representation
- court order compliance
- procedural default
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:16778
Bhogale 20.cp-397-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.397 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14570 OF 2018
Girish Laxman Suryawanshi and ors. … Petitioners
Versus
The Secretary, Rural Development Department
and anr. .… Respondents
****
Adv. Niranjan Bhavake a/w Adv. Drishti Madhani, Adv. Anurag
Ramekar, Adv. Vaishnavi Chore i/b. Bhavake and Associate
Advocates, for the petitioners.
Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP, for the
respondent-State.
****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that the communication dated 17/06/2022 which disposed of
the representation made by the petitioners dated 27/04/2017 was
never communicated to them. It is only after the affidavit-in-reply
was filed by the State Government to which the decision dated
17/06/2022 is annexed that the petitioners became aware of such
1
Bhogale 20.cp-397-2024.odt
decision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
representation has not been decided within the time stipulated by
this Court vide order dated 03/12/2021. However, the learned
Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was no
willful intention to defy the orders passed by this Court and the
only reason was that information had to be obtained from various
departments before considered decision could be taken on the
representation made by the petitioners. We find that there is a
substantial compliance of the order, and mere delay in deciding
the representation should not be a factor to stall a decision on this
contempt petition, particularly in view of the explanation tendered
by the learned Additional Government Pleader and considering
that the petitioners have a remedy of challenging the order dated
17/06/2022 before the appropriate forum by filing appropriate
proceedings.
3. Keeping all contentions on merits as regards the decision
dated 17/06/2022 open, the contempt petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 18:23:13 2
Checking your session…