Bombay High Court

SITARAM RAMBHAU BUGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution as the petitioner failed to circulate the matter and serve respondent No. 4.

Summary

Sitara RamBhau Buge filed a contempt petition (No. 122 of 2020) arising out of Writ Petition No. 554 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The Court had earlier directed the petitioner to circulate the matter and serve respondent No. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (AGP) observed that the petitioner had not circulated the matter after 25 February 2020 and that respondent No. 4 remained unserved. The Court inferred that the petitioner was not diligently prosecuting the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the contempt petition for non‑prosecution. The judgment was delivered by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav on 28 September 2026.

Issues considered

Did the petitioner comply with the Court's direction to circulate the matter and serve respondent No. 4?
Is dismissal of the contempt petition appropriate for failure to prosecute the matter diligently?

Subjects

contempt
non‑prosecution
service of notice
High Court
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44687-DB

                                                                         122.20CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          4 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 122 OF 2020
                             IN WRIT PETITION NO.554 OF 2017

                                 SITARAM RAMBHAU BUGE
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
                                             ...
                          AGP for Respondent-State : Mrs.U.S.Bhosle
                                             …

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

                                     DATE      :    28.09.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]         None for the petitioner.


                 2]         The learned AGP submits that it is not certain
                 whether the petitioner has made representation as directed
                 by this Court. The record shows that the petitioner did not
                 circulate the matter after 25 th February, 2020. Moreover, the
                 respondent no. 4 also remained unserved. Thus, it appears
                 that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter
                 diligently. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed for non
                 prosecution.




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

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…