Bombay High Court
PRATIK BHANUDAS MOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is disposed of as the Additional Government Pleader assured a decision on the pending report within two weeks.
Summary
Petitioner Pratik Bhanudas More filed a criminal writ petition alleging that a report dated 21 October 2023 filed before the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had not been decided, thereby adversely affecting his employability and right to livelihood. The petitioner argued that the pending report, which found no basis for the alleged threats against him, was causing undue hardship. The learned Additional Government Pleader confirmed that the report remained undecided since 2023 but assured that a decision would be rendered within two weeks of the hearing. The Court, accepting this assurance, found no further grievance for the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of on the basis that the report would be decided expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether the non‑decision of a report under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 violates the petitioner's right to livelihood
- Whether the Court should intervene to compel an expeditious decision on the pending report
Legislation cited
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- pending report
- right to livelihood
- criminal writ petition
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
2-WP-408-2026 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2026
Pratik Bhanudas More … Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Others … Respondents
——————
Mr. Ismail Kadage for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anand Shalgaonkar, A.P.P. (Through V.C.) for the Respondent-State.
——————
Coram : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.
Date : 4th June 2026.
[ VACATION COURT ]
PER COURT :
1. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the report dated 21 st
October 2023 filed before the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has not been decided
till date. He would submit that, as per the said report, it is categorically
stated that the allegations made against the Petitioner in respect of the
alleged threats given have not been established.
2. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the said report is
pending since the year 2023 and has not yet been decided, due to which the
osk 1 of 2
2-WP-408-2026 (CR).docx
employability of the Applicant is adversely affected. It is affecting the
Applicant’s right to livelihood.
3. Learned A.G.P., on instructions, confirms the fact that the said report is
not decided and it is pending since the year 2023. He on instructions,
submits that the order on the said report will be made expeditiously and in
any event within a period of two weeks from today. The said statement is
accepted.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned A.G.P., the Petition is
worked out. The Petitioner has no other grievance.
5. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
[ RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.06.04
16:06:43
+0530
osk 2 of 2
Checking your session…