(1) C.P. 529-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 529 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8393 OF 2026 DHANANJAY LAXMAN TONDEWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI ... A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. A. S. Shinde .... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner was present in first session, but now when the matter is called again in second session, he remained absent. 2. The present contempt petition is filed since the respondent/Scrutiny did not follow the order dated 27th July 2026 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 8393 of 2026. 3. Admittedly, it was directed to the respondent/Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within the period of three weeks from the date of said order. (2) C.P. 529-2026.odt 4. Today, the learned A.G.P., on instructions submits that, the tribe claim was not in fact closed for order at the relevant time, but report of the Vigilance Cell is yet to be received, and therefore, it will take minimum eight weeks to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner. 5. However, the petitioner being the student, requires the validity certificate for his further admission, and therefore, considering the same, we again direct the respondent/Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Otherwise respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee would face aggravated form of the contempt. The petition is accordingly stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/