Bombay High Court
Adivasi Paradhi Samaj Manila Bachat Gat vs Government on 17 December, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
929 CONT. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
929 CONT. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025
Aadhya Krantiveer Samshersing Paradhi Adivasi Bauudeshiya Sanstha
VERSUS
State of Government And Others
...
Adv. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for State
...
WITH
CONT. PETITION NO. 259 OF 2025
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 17.12.2025 P E R C O U R T :
1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging the contempt of order passed by this Court on 26.06.2024, whereby this Court has directed the respondents not to issue work order, if it is not already issued until further orders.
2. Petitioner contends that in spite this stay order, respondents have issued backdated work order putting the date as 01.07.2024. komal kamble 1/4 929 CONT. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025 Thus according to him, the respondent no.2 - Commissioner has issued backdated work order.
3. Respondents/Contemnors have come out with a case that the stay order was served on them by the petitioner on email at 06:09 hours in the evening of 01.07.2024 and they had issued the work order on the same day at 11:45 am. Therefore, they have not committed any contempt.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out letter dated 23.07.2024 addressed by the Project Officer to the Headmasters of 17 Ashram Schools stating that as per the directions of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, the e-tender process was undertaken and the matter is pending with the Government for final sanction. Till work orders/supply orders are issued from the office of the Commissioner, as a special case the food articles i.e. eggs, vegetables, mutton, chicken be purchased at their level for a period of 7 days at a time. By relying on this letter, petitioner contends that respondents have issued backdated work order. We find some substance in the said contention inasmuch as in the work order komal kamble 2/4 929 CONT. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025 dated 01.07.2024, the copy of the same is also marked to the Project Officer. It is therefore, difficult to believe that the Project Officer was not aware of issuance of those work order till 23.07.2024.
5. The Commissioner - Respondent No. 2 and Project Officer are present in the Court. The Commissioner has relevant record. According to the Commissioner and Project Officer, the copy of the work order was not served on the Project Officer till 23 rd July, 2024. On perusal of the Outward register of the Commissioner's office, we are of the prima facie, the same is subsequently prepared register. In the said register, the copy of the work order is marked to the Project Officer on 01.07.2024. When asked, the Project Officer is not in a position to tell exactly on which date he received copy of the work order. He states that only on going through the Inward register of his office, he can say when the work order is received by his office. Fact remains that the correspondence is also made online.
komal kamble 3/4 929 CONT. PETITION NO. 261 OF 2025
6. While passing the interim order, the Commissioner and Project Officer were represented by learned A.G.P., so it has to be presumed that the orders must have been communicated by learned A.G.P. to respondent no.2 - Commissioner and Project Officer. From the letter dated 23.07.2024 issued by the Project Officer, it is clear that till date no work order was issued. Hence, prima facie, we find merit in the contention of the petitioner that backdated work order is issued to flout the stay order granted by this Court.
7. Issue notice in format to the Commissioner as well as the project officer, returnable after 4 weeks.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] komal kamble 4/4