Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BHONGYA HAIDRYA PAWARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that no notice to respondent No.3 is required and the Committee must decide the pending complaint within six months.

Summary

Bhongya Haidrya Pawara filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Committee (respondent No.2) to decide his 2025 complaint (Application No.2514) which has been pending since 25 April 2025. The petitioner argued that the delay violated his right to timely redress. The Court examined whether a notice to respondent No.3 was necessary and concluded it was not, given the nature of the relief sought. It further held that the Committee must decide the complaint as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of the order. Accordingly, the Court directed the Committee to dispose of the complaint within six months and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Court should issue a notice to respondent No.3 in a petition seeking direction to a committee.
  • Whether the Committee can be directed to decide a pending complaint within a stipulated period.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • administrative delay
  • committee
  • complaint
  • directions
  • notice requirement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41765-DB

                                                                            5-WP.10159.2026.doc


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 5 WRIT PETITION NO. 10159 OF 2026

                                       Bhongya Haidrya Pawara
                                                VERSUS
                         The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Ors
                                                   ...
                Mr. Vikrant P. Raje, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
                                                   ...

                                                 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                         JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                                 DATE     : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                PER COURT :

                1.       Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for

                respondent nos.1 and 2. Considering the nature of relief, this Court

                finds that no notice is required to be issued to respondent no.3.

                2.       The petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to

                respondent no.2-Committee to decide his complaint within stipulated

                period. The petitioner’s complaint is filed in the year 2025 bearing

                Complaint Application No.2514 of 2025. The learned Advocate for

                the petitioner submits that the said complaint is filed on 25.04.2025

                and is still pending for consideration.

                3.       Considering above, we request the respondent no.2-Committee

                to decide the petitioner’s complaint as early as possible and

                preferably within a period of six months from today.
                Sayyed                                                                            1/2
                                                               5-WP.10159.2026.doc


4.       With this, petition stands disposed off.



 (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                                (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)




Sayyed                                                                               2/2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.