Bombay High Court

SUNIL PANDURANG LOKHANDEversusVijay Suryawanshi

Decided: 5 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that no case of wilful non‑compliance was made out and disposed of the contempt petition without adverting to the merits.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent wilfully failed to comply with a High Court order dated 2 April 2025/2026. The respondent submitted a sanctioned building plan dated 16 June 2025, arguing that the plan was approved before the court's order and that the planning authority's role was limited to certain inquiries. The court examined whether the respondent's actions amounted to contempt and whether it could adjudicate the validity of the building permission in these proceedings. It found that no case of wilful non‑compliance was established and declined to consider the legality of the building permission within the contempt petition. The court left the petitioner free to challenge the building permission before a competent civil court and disposed of the contempt petition without addressing the merits.

Issues considered

Whether the respondent wilfully failed to comply with the High Court order dated 2 April 2025/2026.
Whether the validity of the building permission dated 16 June 2025 can be adjudicated in contempt proceedings.

Subjects

contempt
civil procedure
building permission
planning authority
non‑compliance
High Court order
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                             24-CP-551-2026.odt

    Pallavi

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR

Digitally signed by
                                   CONTEMPT PETITION NO.551 OF 2026
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Date: 2026.10.06
12:00:58 +0530        Sunil Pandurang Lokhande                         ...Petitioner
                           Versus
                      Dr. Vijay Suryavanshi,
                      The Commissioner of Pimpri Chinchwad
                      Municipal Corporation                            ...Respondent
                                                       ...
                      Mr. Vaibhav Ugle a/w Prashant Mahajan for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde a/w Riddhi Gurav, Jayvardhan Hajare
                      for the Respondent.
                                                       ...

                                   CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                           ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                   DATE    : 5th OCTOBER, 2026.


                      P.C.:
                      1.      The instant Contempt Petition is preferred alleging wilful

                      non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 2 nd April 2026

                      by the Respondent.

                      2.      At the outset, Mr. Sandeep Shinde, the learned counsel

                      appearing for the Respondent has tendered a sanctioned plan

                      dated 16th June 2025 issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad

                      Municipal Corporation. He submits that before instituting any

                      suit proceedings and/or passing of order dated 2 nd April 2025


                                                        1
                                                     24-CP-551-2026.odt


by this Court in Writ Petition No.16192 of 2025, the

sanctioned plan was already approved.

3.   Mr. Shinde submits that only two issues were involved,

according to this Court’s order dated 2nd April 2025 (supra). In

paragraph 5 thereof, it was observed that the Planning

Authority has to prima facie satisfy itself that all the owners

intend to undergo construction. However, detailed inquiry

cannot be carried out due to the subject matter of adjudication

which has to be done by the Competent Court.

4.   Mr. Shinde further submits that the Planning Authority

can certainly go into the issue as to whether the building

permission is obtained or not as also observed by this Court in

order dated 2nd April 2026 (supra). In that regard, building

permission was duly accorded by the Competent Authority way

back on 16th June 2025.

5.   Considering the factual situation as emerged before us,

we find that no case is made out for wilful non-compliance of

the order passed by the Writ Court. As far as the building

permission dated 16th June 2025 is concerned, we are not

inclined to proceed in respect of the same and/or adjudicate



                               2
                                                          24-CP-551-2026.odt


the   legality/validity   thereof,   in   the   instant    Contempt

proceedings.

6.    However, in case the Petitioner is aggrieved by such

building permission, in light of the order dated 2 nd April 2026

passed by this Court, we leave it open to the Petitioner to press

such relief before the competent Civil Court, in accordance

with law.

7.    Accordingly, the instant Contempt Petition is Disposed Of,

without adverting to the merits of the matter.




[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                          [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.