[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati on 25 February, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:3272-DB
18-SMCP-1-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2026
IN CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 3117 OF 2025
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2019 (D)
(Court on its own motion Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. Vinay Sharma, Counsel for the applicant in CAW No.
3117/2025.
Mr. K.R. Lule, A.G.P. for the State.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
On 21/1/2026, following order was
passed :
"Mr. Anil Bhatkar, Sub Divisional
Officer, Amravati is present before the Court.
He seeks time to file reply. He submits the
revenue case under question will be decided by
28-2-2026. However, we would like to know
his stand on two counts, one is, why was
review case of the year 2012-2013 pending
before him for such a long time and secondly,
why was it not decided in terms of order dated
31-1-2024 passed by learned Single Judge of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1318/2020
directing him to take decision expeditiously.
List the petition for further
consideration in the week commencing from 9-
2-2026."
2] There occurred an inadvertent mistake in
the aforesaid order. The word 'review' shall be replaced
by 'revenue'. Necessary correction shall be made
immediately, and corrected copy be uploaded forthwith.
3] In response to the aforesaid order, the
affidavit is filed. The response was sought on two counts;
one is, why was revenue case of the year 2012-13
pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, for
last about 12 years, and second is, why was it not decided
in terms of order dated 31/1/2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1318/2020
directing him to take decision expeditiously.
4] On first count, the explanation-cum-
justification is that the matter was adjourned on one or
the other count at the instance of the parties, transfer of
Officers, death of non-applicant no.2, which required
taking steps for bringing on record legal representatives,
and that various documents were filed, which was
followed by COVID - 19 pandemic. These are the reasons
assigned for delay of 10-12 years in deciding the case.
5] We do not find this justification worth
accepting. It is always within the powers of an authority
to control proceedings pending before it, particularly, on
the point of seeking adjournments. Transfer of Officers
can be no reason for delay in deciding cases. Death of a
party, and bringing on record legal representatives, is a
matter of 15-20 days, at the most, a month. Filing
documents and examining same is a part of decision
making process, and cannot be a reason to keep
proceedings pending. COVID - 19 pandemic showed its
presence as late as in the year 2020. That would not
prevent the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the case for 8
years prior thereto. Accordingly, the explanation tendered
is rejected.
6] So far as second count is concerned, the
justification is that the Officer under question was
appointed as Returning Officer for Parliamentary
Constituency Elections - 2024, as also, Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly Elections. He was allotted work of
Returning Officer for Corporation Elections 2025-26.
7] This reason is assigned without giving the
period for which he could not discharge his duties in the
office. The Officer was directed to decide the case
expeditiously, and an order to that effect was passed on
31/1/2024. If the plea put forth by the Officer is to be
accepted, it would mean that from 1/2/2024 till
concluding Corporation Elections, he has not discharged
his duties as Sub-Divisional Officer. Such a plea is
unacceptable, and accordingly, rejected.
8] At this stage, the learned A.G.P. seeks time
till 2:30 pm today to take further instructions.
9] Kept back at 2:30 pm.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
LATER ON
10] Mr. Anil Bhatkar, Sub-Divisional Officer,
Amravati, is present. He tenders apology saying that
henceforth, he will ensure that revenue appeals will be
decided well within time, and most importantly, will
ensure prompt compliance of Court's orders.
11] On the basis of assurance, so given, the
contempt is purged.
CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 3117/2025 IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 7276/2019 (D)
12] Not on board. Taken on board.
13] Since, the Sub-Divisional Officer has taken
decision, the Counsel for the applicant is not pressing for
orders.
14] The application is, accordingly, disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/02/2026 18:26:38
