Bombay High Court

SIDRAM TULSIRAM MASKE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of as the order under contempt has been complied with.

Summary

Sidram Tulsiram Maske and others filed a contempt petition against the State of Maharashtra and others, alleging non‑compliance with an order for rental compensation. Respondent No.3 submitted an affidavit stating that the compensation was deposited on 9 December 2013, and the court inferred that the petitioners must have withdrawn the amount. The court observed that the petition had not been circulated since 2013, indicating that the petitioners' grievance was likely redressed. Consequently, the court held that the contempt order had been complied with and disposed of the petition, granting the petitioners liberty to seek appropriate legal remedy if they are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the contempt order has been complied with by the respondents
Whether the petitioners' grievance regarding the rental compensation is redressed

Subjects

contempt
rental compensation
High Court of Bombay
Aurangabad bench
compliance
petition disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42460

                                                                        457.2012CP

                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         5 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 457 OF 2012
                                  IN WP/5289/2011

                            SIDRAM TULSIRAM MASKE AND ORS
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. U.S. Bhosale
                 Advocate for Respondent no.3 : Mr.Rohit Patwardhan h/f
                 Mr.Sangle S.G.

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

                                    DATE      :    15.09.2026

                 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.):


                 1.        None for the petitioners.
                 2.        Respondent no.3 has filed affidavit-in-reply and
                 has stated that the amount of rental compensation is
                 deposited on 09.12.2013. With the passage of time, it is
                 presumed that the petitioners must have withdrawn that
                 amount.
                 3.        In view of the affidavit-in-reply of respondent no.3,
                 the order under contempt is complied with.
                 4.        Even otherwise, the petition is not even circulated
                 from 2013. Thus, it appears that the grievance of the
                 petitioners must have been redressed.
                 5.        In view of the above, the contempt petition is
                 disposed of with liberty that if at all the petitioners are
                 aggrieved by the    quantum of amount determined by
                                                       457.2012CP

                               2

respondent, it would be open for the petitioners 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…