(1) 925 C. P. 573-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT. PETITION NO. 573 OF 2026 IN WP/6775/2023 BHARAT SO KESHAV SALUNKE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETORY, ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Madhukar Wagh AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. J. Salgare ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, & VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 ORDER:- 1. Heard. 2. Admittedly, the tribe claim of the petitioner is not decided within the stipulated period and for that purpose, the present contempt petition is filed. 3. The learned A.P.P. placed on record communication dated 11.09.2026 mentioning that though the petitioner was somewhat negligent in appearing before the respondent/Scrutiny Committee, his tribe claim could not be decided within the stipulated period, however, the respondent/Scrutiny Committee now undertakes to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within two weeks from today, provided that the petitioner should co-operate with the committee. (2) 925 C. P. 573-2026.odt 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would definitely co-operate with the committee. 5. In view fo the same, the said communication is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification. It is treated as undertaking to the Court, failing which, the committee would face aggravated form of contempt. As such, the petition stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE YSK/