Bombay High Court

Tushar Murlidhar BaviskarversusThe State of Maharashtra

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court records the AGP's undertaking to decide the tribe claims within four weeks and disposes of the petition, warning of aggravated contempt for non‑compliance.

Summary

Petitioner Tushar Murlidhar Baviskar filed a writ petition alleging that the State of Maharashtra failed to decide his tribe claims by the deadline of 22‑09‑2025 as ordered. The State’s Advocate General acknowledged the delay, citing subsequent events that prevented the orders, and promised that the Scrutiny Committee would decide the claims within four weeks. The Court recorded this promise as an undertaking and warned that failure to comply would constitute aggravated contempt. No substantive adjudication on the merits was made. Consequently, the petition was disposed with the undertaking recorded.

Issues considered

Does the failure to pass orders on tribe claims within the stipulated deadline amount to contempt of court?
Can the Court compel an administrative Scrutiny Committee to decide pending claims within a specific time frame?

Subjects

contempt
administrative law
tribal claims
writ petition
delay
court undertaking

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39848-DB

                                                                           927 cp 516-26.




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              927 CONT. PETITION NO. 516 OF 2026
                                      IN WP/10717/2025

                             TUSHAR MURLIDHAR BAVISKAR
                                         VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                             ...
          Mr. M. L. Paithane h/f Mr. Golegaonkar Madhur Anil, Mr. Golegaonkar
          Madhur Anil, Advocate for the Petitioner
          Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent-State
                                             ….


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

                                     Date      :   01/09/2026

          PER COURT :


          1.   Heard.


          2.   Admittedly, as per the order alleged to have been disobeyed, the
          tribe claims of the petitioners were to be decided on or before
          22/09/2025, as the matters had been closed for orders.


          3.   However, today, learned AGP, on instructions, submits that
          though the tribe claims of the petitioners had been closed for orders,
          but the orders could not be passed due to certain subsequent events.
          He assures this Court that respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee
          shall decide the tribe claims of the petitioners within four weeks.




                  VS Maind/                                           Page|1
                                                               927 cp 516-26.




4.   We record the said statement of learned AGP as an undertaking to
this Court. In the event of failure to comply with the said undertaking,
respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall be liable to face an
aggravated form of contempt. With the above observations, the petition
stands disposed of.




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




       VS Maind/                                          Page|2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…