Bombay High Court
DIGVIJAY DINKAR PATILversusDIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PUNE
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The contempt petition is disposed of by directing the Divisional Commissioner to decide the complaint by 4 April 2026 and to ensure compliance with the original order by 20 April 2026.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Divisional Commissioner of Pune to decide a complaint filed under Section 39(1) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959. A Division Bench ordered the Commissioner to decide the complaint, but the petitioners alleged non‑compliance and filed a contempt petition. The respondent’s Advocate General explained that a report from the Zilla Parishad caused delay, and that the matter was adjourned with a promise to decide the complaint within four weeks. The Court, accepting this explanation, disposed of the contempt petition by directing the Commissioner to decide the complaint on or before 4 April 2026 and to ensure compliance with the original order by 20 April 2026. The contempt petition was therefore not dismissed but resolved with a specific compliance deadline.
Issues considered
- Whether the filing of a contempt petition is appropriate for alleged non‑compliance with a mandamus order directing the decision of a complaint under the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.
- Whether the Court can impose a specific deadline for the administrative authority to comply with its earlier mandamus order.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 — s. 39(1)
Subjects
- mandamus
- contempt of court
- administrative law
- Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- compliance deadline
Judgment
39-CP-616-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.616 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.17690 OF 2024
Digvijay Dinakar Patil & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chandrakant Pulkundwar,
Divisional Commissioner, Pune & Ors. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Bhalchandra Bhanudas Mote, for the Petitioners.
Ms. T. J. Kapre, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar &
Pravin S. Patil, JJ.
Date: March 4, 2026.
P.C.:
1. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.17690 of
2024 allowed the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clause (a). The said
prayer clause (a) reads as under:
“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus and/or any other writ in mandamus, thereby
directing the Respondent No. 1 to decide the complaint iled
by Petitioners and others as stipulated in Section 39 (1) of the
Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959.”
2. By contending that despite direction of the Division Bench of this
Court, the said Complaint iled by the Petitioners and others has not
been decided, the Contempt Petition has been iled.
Arjun 1 of 2
39-CP-616-2025.doc
3. It is the submission of Ms. Kapre, learned AGP, that as the Report
from Zilla Parishad, Sangli received after some time, the Order could
not be complied with. However, she submits that thereafter hearing
was given and the matter has now been adjourned for further hearing.
She submits that further hearing will be given and thereafter the
Complaint iled by the Petitioners will be decided within a period of 4
weeks from today.
4. Thus, in view of the said statement made by learned AGP, the
Contempt Petition is disposed of by directing that the Divisional
Commissioner, Pune shall decide the Complaint iled by the Petitioners
on or before 4th April 2026.
5. The Contempt Petition is disposed of in above terms.
6. However, to ensure compliance of the Order dated 17th June
2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition
No.17690 of 2024 and the statement made by the learned AGP on the
basis of which the Contempt Petition is disposed of, stand over to 20th
April 2026.
[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]
Arjun 2 of 2
Checking your session…