Bombay High Court

SHAIKH NASEER SHAIKH HASSANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as nothing survives in it.

Summary

Shaikh Naseer Shaikh Hassan filed a contempt petition against the State of Maharashtra and others after being directed to submit a representation to Respondent No.2, which was to be decided within two weeks. The petitioner complied, but no decision was rendered, prompting the contempt filing. The court issued a notice to Respondent No.2-B, but the petitioner failed to provide the respondent's address, leading to a conditional order dismissing the petition against that respondent. No further action was taken after 2013, and the petition was not circulated. Consequently, the court held that nothing remained in the contempt petition and disposed of it.

Issues considered

What procedural requirements must be satisfied for a contempt petition to proceed when a respondent fails to comply with a court direction?

Subjects

contempt of court
procedural default
representation
petition dismissal
High Court

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                         902 CP-112.2011.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         902 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2011
                   IN WP/2173/2008

              SHAIKH NASEER SHAIKH HASSAN
                        VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Mr. Kalyan V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge,
                      Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    DATED       : 16th September, 2026

Order (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.) :

1.    In the order of which disobedience is alleged, it was

directed to the petitioner to file representation to respondent

No.2 and the respondent No.2 was supposed to decide it within

two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner had made a

representation and since it was not decided, the contempt

petition was filed.

2.    After issuance of notice to respondent No.2-B in the

contempt petition, the petitioner failed to supply address of

respondent No.2-B and hence by the conditional order dated

18.01.2013, the petition was automatically dismissed against

respondent No.2-B, who was suppose to make compliance.
                              (2)
                                              902 CP-112.2011.odt
3.    Even otherwise after the year 2013, neither the petition

was circulated nor the steps were taken.

4.    In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt

petition and the same is disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…