Bombay High Court
VENKAT KISHANRAO SONDAREversusEKNATH BALA PATIL AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The contempt petition was disposed of as the petitioner lacked standing due to his retirement and non‑party status in the original writ.
Summary
The petitioner, Venkat Kishanrao Sondare, filed Contempt Petition No. 429 of 2012 alleging contempt in Writ Petition No. 3971 of 2010, in which he was only an intervenor and not a party. The court examined the Resource Personnel report which showed that the petitioner was not a petitioner or respondent in the original writ and that he had retired at age 56 in 2010. It was also noted that the petitioner had not circulated the contempt petition after 15 April 2013. Given his retirement and lack of standing, the court held that nothing survived in the contempt petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file a contempt petition in the said matter
- Whether the retirement of the petitioner affects the maintainability of the contempt petition
Subjects
- contempt of court
- standing
- intervention
- retirement
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42139
1 913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012
IN WP/3971/2010
VENKAT KISHANRAO SONDARE
VERSUS
EKNATH BALA PATIL AND ORS
...
Adv. M.S.Karad, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondents-State
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 09/09/2026
ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.) :-
. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to
take instructions, but the report of the Resource Personnel
indicates that the petitioner was not either in the array of
petitioners or respondents in Writ Petition No.3971 of 2010 and he
was permitted to intervene in the Writ Petition. Furthermore,
Mr.Hedau was not arrayed as respondent-contemnor in the
Contempt Petition. From the clause title of this Contempt Petition,
it is clear that age of the petitioner in the year 2010 was 56 years
and he might have retired on superannuation during pendency of
the instant Contempt Petition. The petitioner has not circulated the
Contempt Petition after 15.04.2013.
2 913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012
2. As per the report, the age of petitioner in the year 2010 was
56 years. By this time, the petitioner must have retired from
service.
3. In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition
and the same stands disposed of.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
shivani/
Checking your session…