Bombay High Court

SHANKAR NATHABHAU DOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed as the petitioner is presumed to have received the rental compensation and the grievance appears to have been redressed.

Summary

Shankar Nathabhau Dole filed a contempt petition (No. 331 of 2013) alleging that he had not received rental compensation due from the State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that, given the lapse of time, it could be presumed that the petitioner had already received the compensation. Moreover, the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely already redressed. Consequently, the Court found no ground to entertain the contempt petition. The petition was therefore disposed of, with the Court noting that the petitioner could approach the appropriate forum if dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in the contempt petition for alleged non‑payment of rental compensation
Whether the passage of time and lack of circulation of the petition indicate that the grievance has been redressed

Subjects

contempt petition
rental compensation
procedural delay
petition dismissed
presumption of receipt

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42457

                                                                       331.2013CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          10 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 331 OF 2013
                                    IN WP/3432/2012

                               SHANKAR NATHABHAU DOLE
                                          VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare

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

                                     DATE      :    15.09.2026

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


                 1.         None for the petitioner.
                 2.         With the passage of time, it is presumed that the
                 petitioner must have received the rental compensation.
                 3.         Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated
                 from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the
                 petitioner must have been redressed.
                 4.         In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioner is
                 aggrieved by the     quantum of amount determined by
                 respondent, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the
                 grievance by availing the appropriate remedy under law.




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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…