Bombay High Court

SHAIKH HARUN SHAIKH SAGIR AHEMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND DRUGS DEPT, MANTRALAYA AND OTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed for lack of specific directions in the impugned order and for being vague about the alleged contempt.

Summary

Shaikh Harun Shaikh Sagir Ahmed filed a contempt petition challenging a circular dated 06‑04‑2017 (No. 344) alleging it contravened the High Court's order dated 04‑03‑2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2015. The Court examined the 2016 order and found that it contained no specific directions that could have been violated by the circular. Moreover, the petition’s prayer clause was vague and failed to specify how the alleged contempt occurred. Consequently, the Court held that the petition disclosed no viable claim and dismissed it. The related civil application (No. 9585 of 2017) was also disposed of as a consequence of the contempt petition’s dismissal.

Issues considered

Whether the circular dated 06‑04‑2017 contravenes the order dated 04‑03‑2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1368 of 2015.
Whether the contempt petition sufficiently specifies the alleged contempt of the Court’s order.

Subjects

contempt of court
circular
jurisdiction
procedural deficiency
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27569-DB

                                                                        329.17CP

                                                1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          902 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.329 OF 2017
                        IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2015

                           SHAIKH HARUN SHAIKH SAGIR AHEMAD
                                          VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHER
                                              ...
                           AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.J.Salgare
                                              ...
                                     CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                     DATE      :    10.07.2026
                 P.C. :


                 1]         None for the petitioner.


                 2]         The learned AGP pointed out that though this

                 Contempt Petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging the

                 circular dated 06.04.2017 bearing No.344, being contrary to

                 the order passed by this Court dated 04.03.2016 in Criminal

                 Writ Petition no. 1368 of 2015. But, on going through the

                 order dated 04.03.2016, this Court had not passed any

                 specific directions of which the contempt has been made by

                 issuing aforesaid circular. Even the prayer clause-A of the

                 Contempt Petition is also vague and the Petition does not

                 specify as to how the contempt of order of this Court dated

                 04.03.2016 was made by issuing Circular.
                                                       329.17CP

                              2



3]         In view of the same, nothing survives in this

Contempt Petition and the same stands disposed of.


4]         In view of disposal of main Contempt Petition,

Civil Application No.9585 of 2017 also stands disposed of.



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


DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…