Bombay High Court

PUNLAL SHIVLAL DHANAWATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as the grievance appears to have been redressed and the lapse of time presumes receipt of compensation.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition seeking rental compensation from the State of Maharashtra. The Court observed that, given the passage of time, it could be presumed that the petitioner had already received the compensation. Moreover, the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the grievance was likely already redressed. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt petition, noting that if the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by the respondent, he may pursue the appropriate legal remedy. The petition was therefore dismissed without any order for further relief.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt petition is maintainable after a long lapse of time
Whether the petitioner is entitled to rental compensation from the State
Whether the grievance has been adequately redressed

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
lapse of time
grievance redressal
appropriate remedy

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42519

                                                                       456.2012CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          4 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 456 OF 2012
                                   IN WP/5983/2011

                                 PUNLAL SHIVLAL DHANAWAT
                                           VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS
                                              ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.B. Patil
                 Advocate for respondent no.3 : Mr. B.R. Survase

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

                                     DATE      :    15.09.2026

                 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.):
                 1.         None for the petitioner.
                 2.         With the passage of time, it is presumed that the
                 petitioner must have received the rental compensation.
                 3.         Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated
                 from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the
                 petitioner must have been redressed.
                 4.         In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioner is
                 aggrieved by the     quantum of amount determined by
                 respondent, it would be open for the petitioner to agitate the
                 grievance by availing the appropriate remedy under law.




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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…