Bombay High Court

DR. RAJESH KRISHNACHANDRA SHAHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF REVENUE AND FOREST

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

Since the petitioner complied with the contempt order, the petition stands disposed.

Summary

The petitioner, Dr. Rajesh Krishnachandra Shah, filed a continuous petition (No. 390 of 2024) challenging the State of Maharashtra. The Court had earlier issued a contempt order directing the petitioner to produce a certified copy of mutation entry No. 3004. Counsel for the petitioner submitted the required document, demonstrating compliance with the contempt order. The Court examined the submission and found that the condition imposed by the contempt order had been satisfied. Consequently, the Court held that no further relief could be granted and ordered the petition to be disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner’s compliance with the contempt order extinguishes the relief sought in the petition

Subjects

contempt
petition disposal
compliance
High Court
mutation entry

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                     954- C. P. 390-2024.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CONT. PETITION NO. 390 OF 2024
                         IN WP/9373/2022

               DR. RAJESH KRISHNACHANDRA SHAH
                            VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF
                      REVENUE AND FOREST

                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adv. Trupti P. Joshi h/f
                             Mr. Anand P. Bhandari
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. S. Shinde
                                 .....

                   CORAM :       SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                   DATED :        SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

ORDER:-

1.     The learned counsel holding for Mr. A.P. Bhandari placed on

record the copy of mutation entry No. 3004, which has been certified.

Thus, she submits that order under contempt is complied with.

2.     In view of the same, nothing survives in this petition and it

stands disposed of.



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

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…