Bombay High Court

RAMKISAN DAGDUBA TANGDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as the petitioner’s grievance appears to have been redressed.

Summary

Ramkisan Dagduba Tangde filed a contempt petition (No. 334 of 2013) against the State of Maharashtra and others, alleging non-payment of rental compensation. The State, through an affidavit, asserted that the compensation was calculated according to government policy and had already been paid to the petitioner. The court noted that the petition had not been circulated since 2013 and that the petitioner’s grievance appeared to have been redressed. Consequently, the court disposed of the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate legal remedy if dissatisfied with the amount awarded. No further orders were made.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner’s grievance regarding rental compensation has been redressed.

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
grievance redressed
High Court
petition disposed

Judgment

                                                 (1)
                                                                     908 CP-334.2013.odt
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     908 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2013
                               IN WP/3422/2012

                           RAMKISAN DAGDUBA TANGDE
                                    VERSUS
                     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     None for the petitioner.
                       Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                DATED       : 16th September, 2026

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

            1.    None for the petitioner.

            2.    Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.4 stating that
            the rental compensation was worked out as per the policy of
            the Government and the same is paid to the petitioner.

            3.    Even otherwise also, the petition is not circulated after
            2013. As per the affidavit, grievance of the petitioner seems to
            be redressed.

            4.    In view of above, the contempt petition is disposed of
            with liberty that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the
            quantum of amount determined by the respondent, it will be
            open for the petitioner to agitate the grievance by availing
            appropriate remedy under law.


            (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                    (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                   JUDGE                                       JUDGE
VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…