Bombay High Court
MOHD ABDUL QUADEER MOHD ABDUL KHALILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The contempt petition was disposed of as nothing survives to sustain a contempt proceeding.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohd Abdul Quadeer, filed a contempt petition (No. 246 of 2013) alleging that the State of Maharashtra had failed to decide a proposal concerning his deemed date of promotion, despite an earlier order dated 20 April 2012 directing the respondent to do so. The proposal was forwarded by the Zilla Parishad, Nanded to the Commissioner, Aurangabad on 11 July 2013, and the court observed that, given the passage of time, the decision should have been taken by now. The bench examined whether any breach of the 2012 order persisted that could justify contempt proceedings. Finding that the required decision had either been made or the time for it had elapsed, the court concluded that no contemptuous act remained. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed and the matter was disposed of. The order was pronounced by Justices Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav on 27 August 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the status of the contempt petition when the order directing a decision on the promotion proposal appears to have been complied with or become moot?
Subjects
- contempt of court
- promotion
- administrative order
- disposal of petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39012
1 910 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 246 OF 2013
IN WP/5044/2010
MOHD ABDUL QUADEER MOHD ABDUL KHALIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…..
Adv. V. G. Salgare, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv.G. A. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondents-State
Adv. R. K. Kharat h/f V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Respondent 2
and 5
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 27/08/2026
Per Court:
. By order dated 20.04.2012 passed by this Court in writ
petition No. 5044 of 2010, respondent No. 3 was directed to decide
the proposal regarding the deemed date of promotion of the
petitioner. The proposal was forwarded by the Zilla Parishad,
Nanded, respondent No.3 to the Commissioner, Aurangabad on
11.07.2013. Since the proposal was forwarded in the year 2013,
the proposal must have been decided by this time.
2. In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition
and petition stands disposed of.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
shivani/
Checking your session…