Bombay High Court

Dhananjay so Laxman TondewadversusThe State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary To Tribal Development, Department,Mantralaya, Mumba

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that the Scrutiny Committee must decide the tribal claim within four weeks of the order, failing which it will face aggravated contempt.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Laxman Tondewad, filed a contempt petition alleging that the State's Scrutiny Committee failed to comply with the court’s order dated 27 July 2026, which required a decision on his tribal claim within three weeks. The petitioner needed a validity certificate for admission to a student program. The respondent’s counsel indicated that the Vigilance Cell report was pending, necessitating at least eight weeks to decide. The bench directed the Scrutiny Committee to render its decision within four weeks from the order, warning of aggravated contempt for further delay, and disposed of the contempt petition.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee’s failure to decide the tribal claim within the stipulated three‑week period constitutes contempt of court.
Whether the court may impose a new, shorter deadline to avoid further contempt.

Subjects

contempt of court
tribal claim
validity certificate
student admission
Scrutiny Committee
court order compliance

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                          C.P. 529-2026.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 529 OF 2026
                              IN
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 8393 OF 2026

                 DHANANJAY LAXMAN TONDEWAD
                            VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO
     TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

                                   ...
             A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde
                                   ....

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

                  DATED :       SEPTEMBER 03, 2026

ORDER:-

1.     Though the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in

first session, but now when the matter is called again in second

session, he remained absent.



2.     The   present    contempt     petition   is   filed    since    the

respondent/Scrutiny did not follow the order dated 27th July 2026

passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8393 of 2026.



3.        Admittedly, it was directed to the respondent/Scrutiny

Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within the period

of three weeks from the date of said order.
                                   (2)
                                                         C.P. 529-2026.odt
4.     Today, the learned A.G.P., on instructions submits that, the tribe

claim was not in fact closed for order at the relevant time, but report

of the Vigilance Cell is yet to be received, and therefore, it will take

minimum eight weeks to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner.



5.     However, the petitioner being the student, requires the validity

certificate for his further admission, and therefore, considering the

same, we again direct the respondent/Scrutiny Committee to decide

the tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and in any case within a

period of four weeks from the date of this order.               Otherwise

respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee would face aggravated form of

the contempt. The petition is accordingly stands disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                  JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…