Bombay High Court

Bharat So Keshav SalunkeversusThe State of Maharashtra Through its Secretory,

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court accepted the committee’s undertaking as sufficient and disposed of the contempt petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Bharat So Keshav Salunke, filed a contempt petition because the Scrutiny Committee failed to decide his tribe claim within the prescribed time. The petitioner was partially negligent in appearing before the committee, but the committee acknowledged the delay and promised to decide the claim within two weeks, conditional on the petitioner's cooperation. The petitioner’s counsel assured cooperation. The court treated the committee’s communication as an undertaking to the court and warned that non‑compliance would constitute aggravated contempt. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of without further orders.

Issues considered

The Scrutiny Committee’s delay in deciding the petitioner’s tribe claim within the stipulated period
Whether the committee’s undertaking to decide the claim within two weeks, subject to petitioner’s cooperation, suffices to dispose of the contempt petition

Subjects

contempt of court
tribal claim
administrative delay
cooperation
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                                   925 C. P. 573-2026.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CONT. PETITION NO. 573 OF 2026
                         IN WP/6775/2023

                   BHARAT SO KESHAV SALUNKE
                                VERSUS
    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETORY,
                                   ...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Madhukar Wagh
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare
                                   ...

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

                   DATED :      SEPTEMBER 11, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Heard.



2.    Admittedly, the tribe claim of the petitioner is not decided

within the stipulated period and for that purpose, the present

contempt petition is filed.



3.    The learned A.P.P. placed on record communication dated

11.09.2026 mentioning that though the petitioner was somewhat

negligent in appearing before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, his

tribe claim could not be decided within the stipulated period, however,

the respondent/Scrutiny Committee now undertakes to decide the

tribe claim of the petitioner within two weeks from today, provided

that the petitioner should co-operate with the committee.
                                   (2)
                                                      925 C. P. 573-2026.odt
4.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner would definitely co-operate with the committee.



5.     In view fo the same, the said communication is taken on record

and marked as ‘X’ for identification. It is treated as undertaking to the

Court, failing which, the committee would face aggravated form of

contempt. As such, the petition stands disposed of.



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

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…