Disposed

Girish Laxman Suryawanshi v. Secretary, Rural Development Department

Bombay HC8 Apr 2026CP/397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court contempt petition disposed; substantial compliance found; delay in deciding representation not treated as wilful defiance; order dated 03/12/2021 stipulating time; communication/decision dated 17/06/2022 never communicated to petitioners; representation dated 27/04/2017; Secretary Rural Development Department; State Government affidavit-in-reply; Girish Laxman Suryawanshi; Writ P

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; all contentions on merits regarding the decision dated 17/06/2022 kept open; petitioners free to challenge that decision before the appropriate forum by filing appropria

Girish Laxman Suryawanshi Vs Secretary, Rural Development Department — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Bhogale 20.cp-397-2024.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AS:16778

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.397 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14570 OF 2018

¶7

Girish Laxman Suryawanshi and ors. … Petitioners Versus

¶8

The Secretary, Rural Development Department and anr. .… Respondents

¶9

¶10

Adv. Niranjan Bhavake a/w Adv. Drishti Madhani, Adv. Anurag Ramekar, Adv. Vaishnavi Chore i/b. Bhavake and Associate Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP, for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 8^th APRIL, 2026

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶17

is that the communication dated 17/06/2022 which disposed of

¶18

the representation made by the petitioners dated 27/04/2017 was

¶19

never communicated to them. It is only after the affidavit-in-reply

¶20

was filed by the State Government to which the decision dated

¶21

17/06/2022 is annexed that the petitioners became aware of such

¶22

¶23

Bhogale 20.cp-397-2024.odt

¶24

decision. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the representation has not been decided within the time stipulated by this Court vide order dated 03/12/2021. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that there was no willful intention to defy the orders passed by this Court and the only reason was that information had to be obtained from various departments before considered decision could be taken on the representation made by the petitioners. We find that there is a substantial compliance of the order, and mere delay in deciding the representation should not be a factor to stall a decision on this contempt petition, particularly in view of the explanation tendered by the learned Additional Government Pleader and considering that the petitioners have a remedy of challenging the order dated 17/06/2022 before the appropriate forum by filing appropriate proceedings.

¶25

Keeping all contentions on merits as regards the decision dated 17/06/2022 open, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶26

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶27

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/04/2026 18:23:13

¶28

Girish Laxman Suryawanshi v. Secretary, Rural Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Laxman Suryawanshi v. Secretary, Rural Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases