Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has rejected a recusal application filed by Pramod Natthuji Manmode, secretary of Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., seeking the withdrawal of Justice Anil L. Pansare from contempt proceedings concerning alleged non-compliance with court directions over a 24-metre-wide Development Plan (DP) road at Nirmal Nagari, Umred Road, Nagpur.
The Court also imposed a ₹5 lakh cost on Manmode, directing him to deposit the amount with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, within two weeks.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta was hearing Contempt Petition No. 71 of 2026, arising from the long-running dispute concerning the DP road and structures allegedly standing on land reserved for the road.
Gold Rate
Aug 27 ,2026 - Time 10.30Hrs
Why did Pramod Manmode seek Justice Pansare’s recusal?
Manmode alleged that Justice Pansare had previously been associated with Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society and had also been empanelled as its advocate. He further claimed that disputes had arisen between them over loan accounts and other matters and alleged that the judge was prejudiced against the society.
The Bench rejected the allegations, observing that Manmode had failed to produce material establishing a connection between Justice Pansare and the dispute currently before the Court.
The judges also questioned why the alleged dispute, which Manmode claimed dated back to around 2007-08, had not been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. The Court noted that Manmode had appeared before the Bench on several occasions without raising the issue at the earliest opportunity.
The Bench further found that Manmode could not provide adequate details concerning the alleged quarrel, including its place, time or nature.
Another allegation concerning Justice Pansare’s brother was also not supported by documentary evidence, the Court noted.
The Bench took a serious view of what it considered baseless allegations against a sitting judge. It observed that unwarranted imputations against a judge, if intended to interfere with the administration of justice, may amount to criminal contempt.
The Court has consequently taken suo motu criminal contempt cognizance of the allegations against Justice Pansare. That contempt matter, however, will be heard by a Bench that does not include Justice Pansare.
How the Nirmal Nagari DP road dispute began
The dispute has a much longer history.
The land in question at Mouza Harpur on Umred Road, Nagpur, was affected by a sanctioned 24-metre-wide DP road. An earlier 2019 High Court judgment records that the land had been subject to conditions requiring the portion affected by the DP road to be surrendered to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.
In a separate proceeding, the Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society had challenged the municipal authorities’ position concerning the surrender of the DP-road land and its entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI). The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench allowed that petition in April 2019, dealing with land covered by the 24-metre DP road at Survey Nos. 15, 16, 18 and 20 of Mouza Harpur.
The road dispute subsequently resurfaced in Writ Petition No. 4722 of 2019, filed by Nirmal Nagari resident Pranali Ravindra Puttewar.
2025: High Court orders removal of structures from DP road
On April 29, 2025, the Nagpur Bench ruled in the Puttewar case that land reserved in the sanctioned development plan for a 24-metre-wide road could not simply be diverted for other uses unless the development plan was modified under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act or the reservation otherwise lapsed according to law.
The case concerned structures including a substation, transformer and water-treatment-related infrastructure located on the road reservation. The High Court subsequently directed their removal and imposed a ₹5 lakh fine on the society in connection with the non-compliance issue. Contemporary reporting also noted that the society had earlier undertaken to remove the encroachments.
The 2025 judgment records Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Ltd. as respondent No. 5, represented through its secretary Pramod s/o Natthuji Manmode.
2026: Contempt proceedings against Manmode
The failure to fully comply with the earlier directions led to Contempt Petition No. 71 of 2026. Court records show that the contempt proceedings were initiated in February 2026 and were repeatedly considered by the Bench of Justices Pansare and Nivedita Mehta.
During the proceedings, the Court questioned the explanation offered for the continued presence of structures on the DP road and sought material concerning compliance with the earlier order.
Manmode subsequently sought Justice Pansare’s recusal, citing his alleged previous association with the society and an alleged dispute dating back years. The Court rejected that plea and imposed the ₹5 lakh cost.
The Court has nevertheless ensured that the separate criminal contempt proceedings arising from the allegations against Justice Pansare will be heard by a different Bench, thereby separating that issue from the contempt proceedings concerning the DP road.
What happens next?
Manmode has been directed to deposit the ₹5 lakh cost within two weeks. The main contempt petition is scheduled for final hearing on September 22, 2026.
The case has therefore now developed into two connected but distinct legal issues: the original dispute over compliance with the High Court’s directions concerning the 24-metre DP road at Nirmal Nagari, and the separate contempt issue arising from allegations made against Justice Pansare.
