Bombay High Court
RAUF NYAJU PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The contempt petition is disposed of due to the petitioner’s negligence and the prior conclusion of the contempt enquiry.
Summary
The petitioner, Rauf Nyaju Patel, filed a contempt petition in 2013 against the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner’s counsel sought time to take instructions, but the Additional Government Pleader informed the court that a contempt enquiry had already been initiated and a final order should have been passed. The court observed that the petitioner had been negligent in pursuing the matter, having neither circulated the petition nor given instructions to counsel since 2013. Consequently, the court found no merit in continuing the petition. The contempt petition was therefore disposed of by the bench.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a contempt petition when the petitioner has been negligent and the enquiry has already been concluded?
Subjects
- contempt
- petition
- procedural negligence
- court disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39010
901 CONT. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CONT. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2013
IN PIL/5/2012
Rauf Nyaju Patel
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
__________________________________________________________
Adv. G. P. Darandale h/f. Adv. Kakade Amol N . for the
Petitioner
Mr. A. S. Shinde, Addl.GP for State
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 28, 2026
PER COURT :
1) Heard.
2) Although the learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks time to take instructions, learned Additional
Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that as per
the order under contempt, enquiry had already been
initiated and the final order must have been passed by now.
3) Even otherwise, it appears that the petitioner
has been negligent in pursuing this matter. Since the year
2013, the petitioner has neither circulated the matter nor
provided any instructions to his own counsel.
4) In view of the above, the Contempt Petition
stands disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page 1 of 1
Checking your session…