Bombay High Court

KHESE SANDIP PANDURANG AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that no contempt exists and disposed of the petition.

Summary

The petitioners, Khese Sandip Pandurang and others, filed a contempt petition (No. 372 of 2020) alleging that the State of Maharashtra had failed to act on a grievance concerning a transfer that was to be addressed by the Chief Executive Officer. The petition sought relief on the ground that the State was in contempt of a prior order. No petitioners appeared before the Court on the date of hearing. The Court observed that, with the passage of time, the grievance no longer existed and there was nothing left to adjudicate. Consequently, the Court found no basis to entertain a contempt proceeding and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the State of Maharashtra is in contempt of the Court for failing to act on the transfer grievance

Subjects

contempt
petition dismissed
transfer grievance
high court
procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37647-DB

                                                                               910



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          910 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2020
                                    IN WP/13883/2019

                                  Khese Sandip Pandurang And Others
                                                VERSUS
                                  The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                   __________________________________________________________
                   Adv. Suvidh S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners - Absent
                   Mr. S. J. Salgare, AGP for State
                   Adv. Avinash D. Aghav for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 -
                   Absent
                   __________________________________________________________


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

                                     DATE      : AUGUST 20, 2026

                   PER COURT :

                   1)        None appears for the petitioners.

                   2)        The grievance which was to be looked into by the

                   concerned Chief Executive Officer was regarding transfer at

                   the relevant time.

                   3)        However, by the passage of time, nothing survives

                   in the present petition. Contempt Petition, therefore, stands

                   disposed of.



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


                   Komal Kamble                                         Page|1 of 1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…