Bombay High Court
Amol Sheshrao ChavanversusSanjay Shrirang Ghodake
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
No contempt exists as the order was merely an interim opinion and there is no sanctioned Law Officer post.
Summary
Petitioner Amol Sheshrao Chavan filed a contempt petition alleging that Respondent No.1 failed to comply with an interim order dated 05‑02‑2024, which expressed the Court’s opinion that, absent any legal impediment, he should be allowed to work as a Law Officer. Respondents 2 and 3 contended that no such post existed in their institution and that the petitioner was actually appointed as a Junior Clerk, merely performing legal work. The Court examined the order and found it to be an interim opinion, not a binding direction, and noted that there is no sanctioned Law Officer position. Consequently, the Court held that no contempt could arise from the alleged non‑compliance. The contempt petition was therefore disposed of, with the petitioner directed to pursue his grievance in the pending writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the failure to comply with an interim opinion of the Court, ordering the petitioner to be allowed to work as a Law Officer, amounts to contempt of court when no such post is sanctioned.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- contempt of court
- interim order
- law officer appointment
- sanctioned post
- jurisdiction
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42161
964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025
IN WP/964/2024
Amol Sheshrao Chavan
Versus
Sanjay Shrirang Ghodake And Others
__________________________________________________________
• Petitioner namely Chavan Amol Sheshrao is party in
person
• Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State
• Adv. Avinash N. Irpatgire for Respondent No. 1
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026
PER COURT :
1) Heard.
2) The petitioner, who is party in person, is
seeking action against Respondent No. 1 under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since Respondent No. 1 did
not comply with the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ
Petition No. 964 of 2024.
3) On going through the said order, it appears that
this Court had expressed its opinion that if there is no legal
impediment in allowing the petitioner to work as Law
Officer, he be permitted to discharge his duties.
Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 3
964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025
4) However, the learned counsel for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3-management submits that the aforesaid order
was passed as an interim order and, at that time also, it
was pointed out to this Court that no such post of Law
Officer exists in the institution and, therefore, there cannot
be any contempt for not giving an opportunity to the
petitioner to discharge his duties as Law Officer.
5) It is significant to note that the main petition is
still pending, wherein reply has also been filed by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, mentioning that no such post of
Law Officer exists in the institution.
6) It is contended that the petitioner was, in fact,
appointed as a Junior Clerk, but considering his degree of
LL.B., he was assigned the work of the legal department
and to supervise the Court work also. It is further
contended that such assignment of legal work does not
mean that he was appointed as Law Officer.
7) When asked, the petitioner could not point out
any document annexed to the main petition under which it
can be said that he was appointed as Law Officer in the
institution.
Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 3
964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025
8) On the contrary, the petitioner himself admitted
that, as there was no post of Law Officer, he was appointed
as a Junior Clerk. Thus, it has been sufficiently made clear
that there was no sanctioned post of Law Officer in the
institution of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
9) Under such circumstances, the order under
contempt, which is purely interim in nature, cannot be
implemented for want of a sanctioned post of Law Officer.
Further, the order under contempt is not a direction, but
merely an opinion expressed by this Court that if there is
no legal impediment, then the petitioner can be allowed to
work as Law Officer.
10) As such, there cannot be any contempt of such
order for want of a sanctioned post of Law Officer. The
petitioner can agitate his grievance in the pending writ
petition.
11) Therefore, we do not find any reason to
continue with this contempt petition, as there is no
contempt, in our opinion. Accordingly, the Contempt
Petition stands disposed of.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page| 3 of 3
Checking your session…