Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA BAPURAO HANDEversusMAHENDRA SHASHIKANT DALVI AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the interim order no longer survived after the writ petition was disposed, and therefore no contempt was committed.
Summary
Petitioner Rajendra Bapurao Hande filed a contempt petition alleging that Respondent No.2 violated an interim order dated 5 September 2019 by issuing a letter on 13 September 2019 allotting a retail outlet to the original Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 9974 of 2019. Respondent No.2 contended that the retail outlet was not actually allotted until after the writ petition was dismissed on 13 January 2020, and that the interim order ceased to operate once the writ petition was disposed. The Court observed that the contempt petition was based solely on the alleged breach of an interim order that no longer survived after the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, the Court found no contempt had been committed. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim order dated 5 September 2019 remained in force after the disposal of Writ Petition No. 9974 of 2019 on 13 January 2020
- Whether Respondent No.2's letter dated 13 September 2019 amounted to contempt of the interim order
Subjects
- contempt of court
- interim order
- status quo
- writ petition
- dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:32831-DB
913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2019
IN WP/9974/2019
Rajendra Bapurao Hande
VERSUS
Mahendra Shashikant Dalvi And Another
__________________________________________________________
Adv. V. N. Khiste h/f. Adv. A. M. Gaikwad for the Petitioner
Ms. U. S. Bhosale, AGP for State
Adv. S. P. Urgunde for Respondent No. 2
__________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 31.07.2026
PER COURT :
1] Heard.
2] Learned Advocate Mr. V. N. Khiste, holding
for Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that despite the order of this Court dated
05.09.2019, Respondent No. 2 issued a letter dated
13.09.2019 stating that the original Respondent No. 3 in
Writ Petition No. 9974 of 2019 had been allotted the retail
outlet.
3] However, the learned counsel for the present
Respondent No. 2 - Aishwarya W/o. Sumit Morge, pointed
Komal Kamble Page|1
913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 847 OF 2019
out from the affidavit-in-reply that as and when
Respondent No. 2 came to know of the order of status quo,
the retail outlet was not actually allotted till the disposal of
the aforesaid Writ Petition, which, admittedly, came to be
dismissed on 13.01.2020.
4] Since the present contempt petition is
founded only on the alleged breach of the interim order and
the main writ petition itself stands disposed of, the interim
order no longer survives.
5] We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that
any contempt has been committed in the matter.
6] Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands
dismissed.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
JUDGE JUDGE
Komal Kamble Page|2
Checking your session…