Pramod Madhukar Suryawanshi v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 CONT. PETITION NO.316 OF 2019 IN WP/7069/2014 PRAMOD MADHUKAR SURYAWANSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Yeramwar h/f Mr. Bayas Anandsing AGP for Respondents:Mr. K.S. Patil ...
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & A. G. GHAROTE, JJ. ...
Date: August 26th, 2019 ...
PER COURT :- Heard Mr Yeramwar, learned counsel holding for Mr. Anandsing Bayas, for the petitioner. Our attention is invited to the order of this Court dated 20.8.2014 passed in Writ petition No.6970/2014, whereby the Division Bench of this Court directed respondent No.2 - scrutiny committee to decide the pending caste validation claim within stipulated period of nine months from the date of the order.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in spite of the directions and stipulation of the period, the scrutiny committee failed to decide the claim of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner was left with no choice, but to approach this Court by filing the present Contempt petition.
Copy of the Contempt Petition was served on the office of the Government Pleader. Mr. Patil, learned AGP, on instructions,
{2} submits before this Court that, a communication was forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader on 27.6.2019, whereby, it was informed that, due to some procedural difficulties viz. nonavailability of the file at Aurangabad and post order of the Court, the matter was transferred from Nandurbar to Aurangabad committee, it requires some time to take decision. Learned AGP further submitted, on the backdrop of communication dated 27.6.2019 that, the scrutiny committee would decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 10 days, as a special drive is undertaken by the scrutiny committee to decide the claim of students.
It was then submitted by Mr. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of this communication, till today the claim is pending before the committee. Mr. Patil makes a statement before this Court that, within two weeks, the claim of the petitioner would be decided, as the committee is undertaking exercise of deciding the claim, as a special drive. The statement made by the learned AGP, on behalf of respondent No.2 is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. The communication dated 27.6.2019 is taken on record and marked as Exhibit 'X' for identification. Learned AGP also submits that, respondents No.3 to 6 tender their unconditional apology for the delay in taking decision and submit that it was unintentional and bonafide act, due to certain reasons which were beyond the
{3} control of these respondents. It is also submitted by Mr. Patil that respondents No.3 to 6 assure this Court that hence forth, they will take proper care for early decision of the claims under the directions of this Court.
The statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. As the grievance of the petitioner is now addressed and is in the process of redressal of claim, we see no reason to keep this contempt petition pending in this Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of.
(A. G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) vbd