Bombay High Court
KAILASH KISHORE GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court extended the time for compliance and disposed of the contempt petition, warning of further action if the order is not obeyed.
Summary
The petitioner, Kailash Kishore Gupta, alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) violated an order dated 25 September 2025 issued in Writ Petition (L) 29807 of 2025. The MCGM contended that the breach was unintentional and caused by genuine difficulty, further claiming the petitioner was absent for the hearing. The Court examined whether the alleged non‑compliance amounted to contempt of its order. It held that the petitioner must appear before the designated officer on 24 August 2026 and extended the compliance deadline by four weeks, warning of serious consequences if the order remains unfulfilled. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of, with liberty to apply if difficulties arise.
Issues considered
- What constitutes a breach of the Court's order dated 25 September 2025?
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance by MCGM amounts to contempt of court.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- court order compliance
- municipal corporation
- civil procedure
- judicial discretion
Judgment
7. CONPWL 2446-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO.96 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3947 OF 2025
Kailash Kishore Gupta …. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Ors. … Respondents
…..
Mr. Shakil Ahmed a/w Mr. Neelraj Shetty and Mr. Rohit Dhotre for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Jyoti Mhatre a/w Mr. Bibhishan Sutar i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for
Respondent-MCGM.
Mr. Avinash Pawar, Officer (I/c) F/N Ward from MCGM, present.
Smt. P.H. Kantharia for Respondent-S.R.A.
…..
CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 19th AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Order
dated 25th September 2025, passed in Writ Petition (L) 29807 OF
2025, is breached by the Respondent-MCGM. The learned Counsel
for the Respondent-MCGM submitted that there was no intention of
defying the Order passed by this Court, but due to some genuine
difficulty and also as the Petitioner was not present for hearing, the
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/2
7. CONPWL 2446-2026.doc
Order could not be complied with. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioner denied this fact and submitted that the Petitioner remained
present for hearing, but no hearing took place.
2. Be that as it may, the Petitioner shall remain present before the
concerned Officer on 24th August 2026 at 11.00 a.m. The concerned
Officer in terms of the Order dated 25th September 2025, shall hear
the Petitioner. Time for complying with the Order dated 25 th
September 2025, is accordingly extended by further period of four
weeks from 24th August 2026. If the Order is not complied with
despite granting this indulgence, we shall be constrained to take
serious view of the matter, including calling upon the concerned
authority to remain personally present in this Court.
3. With the aforesaid directions, the Contempt Petition is disposed
of.
4. Liberty to apply, in case of difficulty.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/2
Digitally signed by
RAJESH RAJESH VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.08.20
17:49:59 +0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.