Bombay High Court

RATNAKAR KISAN RAJGURUversusKUNAL KUMAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was disposed of as there was no surviving cause of action.

Summary

The Court noted that an earlier order required the representation of the petitioner to be decided in January 2012. Over the ensuing years, no evidence was shown that the representation had been decided. The petitioner also failed to circulate the contempt petition after the issuance of a notice. The Court inferred that the petitioner had lost interest in pursuing the contempt proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that there was nothing left to adjudicate in the contempt petition. The petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to comply with a court order and does not pursue a contempt petition?

Subjects

contempt of court
non‑compliance
petition disposal
representation
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41166

                                                                          351.13CP

                                               1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         906 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 351 OF 2013
                            IN WRIT PETITION NO.4794 OF 2012

                                  RATNAKAR KISAN RAJGURU
                                           VERSUS
                                        KUNAL KUMAR
                                              ...
                         AGP for Respondent-State : Mr.Rajdeep D. Raut
                                              …
                                     CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                     DATE      :   04.09.2026


                 PER COURT : [Per : Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.]


                 1]         In the order of which disobedience is alleged, it
                 was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in
                 the month of January, 2012. With the passage of time, it is
                 presumed that the representation of the petitioner must have
                 been decided.

                 2]         Otherwise also the petitioner has not circulated
                 the petition after issuance of notice and it seems that
                 petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the contempt.

                 3]         In view of the same, nothing survives in this
                 Contempt Petition and the same stands disposed of.




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

                 DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…