927 cp 516-26. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 CONT. PETITION NO. 516 OF 2026 IN WP/10717/2025 TUSHAR MURLIDHAR BAVISKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. M. L. Paithane h/f Mr. Golegaonkar Madhur Anil, Mr. Golegaonkar Madhur Anil, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent-State …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. Date : 01/09/2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Admittedly, as per the order alleged to have been disobeyed, the tribe claims of the petitioners were to be decided on or before 22/09/2025, as the matters had been closed for orders. 3. However, today, learned AGP, on instructions, submits that though the tribe claims of the petitioners had been closed for orders, but the orders could not be passed due to certain subsequent events. He assures this Court that respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the tribe claims of the petitioners within four weeks. VS Maind/ Page|1 2026:BHC-AUG:39848-DB 927 cp 516-26. 4. We record the said statement of learned AGP as an undertaking to this Court. In the event of failure to comply with the said undertaking, respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall be liable to face an aggravated form of contempt. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|2