Bombay High Court
GAJANAN GOVINDRAO DESHMUKHversusK H GOVINDRAJ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY UD II THR THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The respondents did not willfully or intentionally disobey the writ order, and the contempt petition is dismissed.
Summary
The Bombay High Court examined a contempt petition filed by Gajanan Govindrao Deshmukh and another petitioner, challenging the State Government's refusal to regularise their employment as sought by a corporation's proposal. The court noted that a writ dated 08‑04‑2025 had directed the respondents to decide the proposal, and the State communicated its rejection on 09‑02‑2026. The key question was whether the respondents willfully, deliberately, or intentionally disobeyed the writ order. The court found that the respondents had duly considered the representation and issued a decision, with no evidence of contemptuous intent. Accordingly, the court held that the contempt petition could not be sustained, purged the notice, and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Did the respondents willfully, deliberately, or intentionally disobey the writ order dated 08‑04‑2025?
- Whether the refusal to regularise the petitioners amounts to contempt of court.
Subjects
- contempt of court
- writ petition
- disobedience of court order
- regularisation
- urban development
- Maharashtra
Judgment
TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by 942-cp-592-2025.odt
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.02.20
21:30:10 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 592 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4064 OF 2025
Gajanan Govindrao Deshmukh & Anr. … Petitioners
versus
K.H.Govindraj, the Principal Secretary
UD II for State of Maharashtra
Through the Urban Development Department & Ors. … Respondents
...
Mr.Yatin M. Malvankar for the Petitioners.
Dr.Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Mrs.Neha Bhide, GP,
Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP and Mr. A.C.Bhadang, AGP for the Respondent -
State.
Dr.K.H.Govindraj, Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development
Department is present.
Mr.Ajinkya Bagade, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department is
present.
Mr.Anilkumar R. Ugale, Under Secretary, Urban Development Department
is present.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2026
P.C:
1. The learned Advocate General of the State has addressed us.
He points out that the communication dated 09.02.2026 (wrongly typed as
Trupti ...1
942-cp-592-2025.odt
2025) conveys the decision of the State Government, through the Desk
Officer, addressed to both, the Corporation and the Petitioners. The
proposal for seeking regularization has been rejected in accordance with
the Rules of the Corporation. Since the representation was tendered by the
Corporation, the proceedings undertaken were not under any particular
statute. Since it was a pure representation, the concerned authorities, i.e
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, have considered the entire file pertaining to the
representation and have taken a decision even upto the level of the Hon’ble
Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra, while rejecting the
proposal of the Corporation.
2. In view of the above, in contempt proceedings, this Court
cannot venture into assessing the quality or virtues of the order passed. If
the representation, as directed by the Writ Order, has been considered and a
decision has been arrived at, this Court has to only assess whether there
was any willful, deliberate, and intentional disobedience of the Writ Order,
coupled with whether the Respondents intended to overbear the authority
of the Court.
3. The Writ Order dated 08.04.2025 directed Respondent Nos. 1
to 3 to decide the proposal sent by the Corporation dated 14.07.2023. The
Trupti ...2
942-cp-592-2025.odt
decision was to be taken by any specific authority amongst Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
4. The learned Advocate General has indicated from the file
pertaining to the proposal that the same was considered and the State
Government has arrived at the conclusion that the proposal cannot be
entertained. He submits that the communication dated 09.02.2026 conveys
the decision of the State that the proposal to equate the Petitioners with one
Smt. Swapnali Chaudhary is not possible, and that the State cannot accept
the proposal to absorb the present Petitioners into regular employment, as
they were appointed during the COVID period.
5. In view of the above, the direction to consider the proposal has
been implemented. Once a decision has been taken, in the absence of any
ingredient to conclude that any of the Respondents deliberately,
intentionally, or willfully disobeyed the Court, this Court cannot arrive at a
conclusion that the order of the Writ Court has been disobeyed.
6. The affidavit-in-reply to this Petition dated 10.02.2026 reflects
the stand of the Government, as narrated by the learned Advocate General.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, are present in the Court.
Trupti ...3
942-cp-592-2025.odt
7. Since we have concluded that the Respondents are not guilty
of disobedience of the order, the notice issued to the Respondents stands
purged. This Contempt Petition is dismissed.
(ABHAY J.MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Trupti ...4
Checking your session…