Bombay High Court

Ramesh Shriniwasrao ChoudhariversusHema wo Vijaykumar Choudhari

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The refusal to grant adjournment and proceeding without notice does not constitute contempt of the High Court's order.

Summary

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the Sub‑Divisional Officer (SDO) failed to comply with the High Court's order dated 22‑April‑2026, which had issued notices and allowed the petitioner to seek an adjournment before the SDO. The SDO, respondent No.4, decided an appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, without issuing notice or granting the requested adjournment. The petitioner argued that this refusal amounted to contempt of the Court's direction. The Court held that the direction to consider the adjournment application favorably was discretionary, not a mandatory command, and therefore the SDO's refusal did not constitute contempt. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed, leaving the SDO's order open to challenge in the appropriate forum.

Issues considered

Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer's refusal to grant an adjournment and proceeding without notice amounts to contempt of the High Court's order.
Whether the High Court's direction to consider the adjournment application favorably is a mandatory command or discretionary guidance.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 247

Subjects

contempt of court
adjournment
quasi‑judicial authority
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
Section 247
High Court order compliance
notice

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:44656


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           14 CONT. PETITION NO. 620 OF 2026
                                    IN WP/4392/2026

                              Ramesh Shriniwasrao Choudhari
                                            VERSUS
                               Hema Wo Vijaykumar Choudhari
                                                ...
             Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Adv Raviprasad Kalyanrao Ashtekar
                        AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. K. Shirse
                                               …

                                CORAM       : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                Dated       : September 29, 2026

           ORAL ORDER :

           1.    The present petition is filed alleging wilful and deliberate non-

           compliance of the order dated 22/04/2026 passed by this Court in Writ

           Petition No.4392 of 2026. By the said order, notices were issued by this

           Court to the respondents in the said petition.



           2.    The then learned Assistant Government Pleader waived notice

           for respondent Nos.2 to 5. The present respondent No.4 is the Sub-

           Divisional Officer, Pathari. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pathari, was

           arrayed as respondent No.4 in the said petition. While issuing notice,

           this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file an application for

           adjournment of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer

           beyond the returnable date.



           3.    It was directed that if such an application was filed, the Sub-


                                             Page 1 of 3
                                                           14 CP 620-2026



Divisional Officer shall consider the same favourably.



4.    It is pointed out by the learned Advocate that the said order

dated 22nd April 2026 was continued by orders dated 30th June

2026 and 14th July 2026.



5.    Learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that despite such

orders being passed by this Court, respondent No.4 decided Case

No.2026/ROR/Remand/KAVI vide order dated 10/07/2026, without

issuing notice to the present petitioner.



6.    The Sub-Divisional Officer was deciding an appeal under

Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The

power is a quasi-judicial power. Perusal of the order passed by this

Court, though it indicates that the application should be considered

favourably, is not in the nature of a command or direction to grant

adjournment compulsorily.



7.    In that view of the matter, although the contention of the

petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer should have granted

adjournment may be sound, it cannot be said that by refusing to

grant adjournment and deciding the appeal on merits, the Sub-

Divisional Officer has committed contempt of the orders passed by

this Court.

                                 Page 2 of 3
                                                           14 CP 620-2026




8.       Leaving all contentions, including the mode and manner of

deciding the appeal without granting adjournment or issuing notice,

open to be raised in an appropriate proceeding for challenging the

said order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the contempt

petition is dismissed.




                                              ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…