Bombay High Court

SAYYAD RUKSANA DASTAGIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Since the order under contempt has been complied with, the contempt petition stands disposed.

Summary

The petitioner, Sayyad Ruksana Dastagir, filed Contempt Petition No. 100 of 2013 arising out of Writ Petition No. 9512 of 2011, alleging that an order of the Court had been contravened. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the respondent had complied with the impugned order. The Court examined whether any ground for contempt remained after such compliance. It held that the purpose of a contempt proceeding is to enforce compliance, and once compliance is achieved the proceeding becomes moot. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition, noting that nothing survives in the present petition.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should continue when the alleged contemptuous order has been complied with

Subjects

contempt
compliance
writ petition
high court
petition disposed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41168

                                                                         100.13CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          904 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2013
                             IN WRIT PETITION NO.9512 OF 2011

                                   SAYYAD RUKSANA DASTAGIR
                                               VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
                                                   ...
                     Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.D.K.Thote h/f. Mr.A.V.Patil
                                               [Indrale]
                           AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs.U.S.Bhosle
                      Advocate for Respondent no.4 : Mr.Shubham S.Kate h/f.
                                             Mr.V.D.Hon
                                                   ...
                                        CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                       VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                      DATE      :   04.09.2026


                 PER COURT : [Per : Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.]


                 1]           Mr.D.K.Thote,   learned   Advocate   holding   for

                 Mr.A.V.Patil [Indrale] submits that the order under contempt

                 is complied with.

                 2]           In view of the same, nothing survives in the

                 present Contempt Petition and the same stands disposed of.




                 [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]             [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
                         JUDGE                            JUDGE

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…