Bombay High Court

SURYAKANT GALSHING PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is disposed of on the basis that the petitioner is presumed to have received the compensation and the grievance appears to have been redressed.

Summary

The petitioner, Suryakant Galshing Pawar, filed a contempt petition alleging that the State of Maharashtra had not paid rental compensation due to him. The court noted that, given the lapse of time since the petition was filed in 2013, it is presumed that the petitioner has already received the compensation. Moreover, the petition had not been circulated for consideration, indicating that the grievance was likely resolved. Consequently, the court disposed of the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to seek any further remedy if dissatisfied with the amount determined. The order emphasizes that any remaining grievance must be pursued through the appropriate legal channels.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner alleging non-payment of rental compensation in a contempt petition?
Whether the passage of time and lack of circulation of the petition imply that the grievance has been redressed.

Subjects

contempt petition
rental compensation
presumption of payment
petition disposal
appropriate legal remedy

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42459

                                                                       459.2012CP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          6 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2012
                                   IN WP/6101/2011

                              SURYAKANT GALSHING PAWAR
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ORS
                                             ...
                 AGP for Respondent/State : Adv. M.N. Ghanekar

                                     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…