Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI SAMBU WAGHRALKARversusThe Commissioner of Police

Decided: 24 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court found no ground for contempt as the petitioner had been given notice and had appeared before the authority, and therefore disposed of the contempt petition.

Summary

Shivaji Sambu Waghralkar filed a contempt petition against the Commissioner of Police alleging that a competent authority, despite this Court's direction, passed an order without giving him an effective opportunity of hearing. The petitioner claimed he was not afforded a hearing on 17 June 2026, even though he appeared before the authority. The Court examined the affidavit-in-reply, which categorically stated that the petitioner had been given notice and did appear before the authority on the said date. The Court held that this factual finding negated any ground for contempt. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of without any order of punishment.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to provide an effective opportunity of hearing, as alleged, constitutes contempt of court.
Whether the petitioner was actually given notice and a chance to be heard, thereby negating contempt.

Subjects

contempt of court
right to hearing
procedural fairness
jurisdiction
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                           7 CP-357-26.DOC

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2026
                                                IN
                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 12910 OF 2025

                   Shivaji Sambu Waghralkar                                ..Petitioner

                           Versus

                   The Commissioner of Police & anr.                   …Respondents


                   Mr. Bernardo Reis a/w Pratik Dixit i/b Ms. Parampara Mistry,
                        for the Petitioner.

                   Mr. V G Badgujar, AGP for Respondents - State.

                                              CORAM :        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                              DATE     :     24th August 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE             P.C.:
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.25
15:00:46 +0530
                   1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

                   2.      Contempt is primarily alleged on the ground that, despite

                   direction by this Court, order was passed by the Competent

                   Authority without providing an effective opportunity of hearing.

                   3.      There is no ground for initiating contempt proceeding as

                   on Page 59 of the affidavit-in-reply, a categorical statement is

                   made that, the petitioner was given notice of hearing and the

                   petitioner did appear before the Authority on 17th June, 2026.

                   4.      Mr. Reis, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted

                   that, though on that day the petitioner was present before the

                   SAINATH, PA                         1/2
                                                       7 CP-357-26.DOC

Competent Authority, no opportunity of hearing was given to the

petitioner. If that is the case, that would be a ground for

challenging the order by initiating appropriate proceeding.

5.     The Contempt Petition, thus, stands disposed.



                                        [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                       2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…