Bombay High Court

RUSTUM APPAJI TANGDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

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

Summary

Rustam Appaji Tangde filed a contempt petition (No. 337 of 2013) alleging that he had not received rental compensation from the State of Maharashtra. The Court noted that, given the lapse of time, it is presumed the petitioner must have received the compensation. Moreover, the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely redressed. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground to continue the contempt proceeding. The petition was therefore disposed, with the Court allowing the petitioner to seek any further remedy regarding the quantum of compensation through the appropriate legal channels.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition should be entertained in view of the presumed receipt of rental compensation.
Whether the lack of circulation of the petition after 2013 indicates that the grievance has been redressed.

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
petition disposal
grievance redressal
presumption of receipt

Judgment

                                     (1)
                                                         911 CP-337.2013.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

         911 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2013
                   IN WP/3468/2012

                 RUSTUM APPAJI TANGDE
                        VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         None for the petitioner.
          Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, 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.    With the passage of time, it is presumed that the
petitioner must have received rental compensation.

3.    Even otherwise also, the petition is not circulated after
2013.    Thus, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner
must have been 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…