Bombay High Court

MOHAMMED ABDUL SAYEED ALIAS SHAKEEL ABDUL KAREEM AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition was dismissed as there was no surviving cause of action, given the Collector’s direction and the pending writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners, Mohammed Abdul Sayeed alias Shakeel Abdul Kareem and another, filed a contempt petition seeking enforcement of an earlier order directing the respondent State to decide their application for NA permission on its merits. The Collector’s communication dated 16‑02‑2021 indicated that the petitioners' original application could not be located and advised them to re‑file with necessary documents, also noting that they had filed a fresh writ petition (No.1383 of 2021) for the same relief. The Court observed that, in view of the Collector’s direction and the pending writ petition, there was no remaining issue in the contempt petition. Consequently, the Court held that the contempt petition could not proceed and ordered its disposal.

Issues considered

What is the effect of the Collector’s communication indicating the original NA permission application is not traceable and directing re‑filing?
Does the filing of a fresh writ petition for the same relief render the contempt petition moot?

Subjects

contempt petition
NA permission
writ petition
disposal
mootness

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                         912 CP-68.2021.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          912 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 68 OF 2021
                   IN WP/14902/2019

     MOHAMMED ABDUL SAYEED ALIAS SHAKEEL ABDUL
                KAREEM AND ANOTHER
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R.R. Raghuwanshi, Advocate holding for Mr. P.D. Bachate,
                      Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                           VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                   DATED       : 1st October, 2026

Per Court :

1.    Heard.

2.    Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought

time to take instructions, but it appears that as per order

under contempt, respondent No.2 was directed to decide the

application of the petitioners for grant of NA permission on it’s

own merits, however, the communication dated 16.02.2021

issued by the Collector, Aurangabad indicates that the

aforesaid application of the petitioners was not traceable, and

therefore, it was opined that if the petitioners again file such

application alongwith the necessary documents, it will be

decided on it’s own merits.               Even otherwise also, it is
                              (2)
                                                912 CP-68.2021.odt
mentioned in the said letter that the petitioners had also filed

fresh Writ Petition No.1383 of 2021 for the same relief. In view

of the same, nothing survives in this contempt petition and it

stands disposed of.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                JUDGE




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…