Shri Pravin Punjaram Nere Vs The State of Maharashtra Thr… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2025)

Shri Pravin Punjaram Nere Vs The State of Maharashtra Thr… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay caused by the respondents in complying with the order dated 11th January, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 451 of 2022 constitutes wilful and intentional violation justifying initiation of contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. +1 more

Court's answer

Delay in compliance of the order/direction of the court is not a ground to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, unless it is demonstrated that such delay was inordinate and intentional to overreach the order.

Ratio / Principle

With reference to the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005, particularly on the basis of the provisions of Section 10 thereof, the contempt proceeding cannot be initiated against the contemnor-respondents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition No. 192 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 451 of 2022, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench (Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar, C.J. and Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.; decided 17th October 2025; Neutral citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:30017-DB). Filed alleging wilful and intentional violation of the order dated 11th January, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 451 of 2022, wherein the petitioner had sought approval to his appointment on the post of Peon. The learned A.G.P. relied on the notification dated 24th February, 2025 issued by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule, submitting that the Court's order stood complied with; the petitioner's counsel invoked Section 10 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 seeking cognizance of the delay in compliance. Held (i): delay in compliance of a court's order/direction is not a ground to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 unless shown to be inordinate and intentional to overreach the order; Held (ii): on the basis of Section 10 of the Act of 2005, the contempt proceeding cannot be initiated against the contemnor-respondents. Contempt petition dismissed.

2025:BHC-AUG:30017-DB

cp192.25

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 192 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 451 OF 2022

Pravin s/o Punjaram Nere ...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.M. Phule, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : 17^th OCTOBER 2025.

P.C. :

Alleging willful and intentional violation of the order dated 11^th January, 2022, passed in writ petition No. 451 of 2022, the present contempt petition has been filed by a person, who was seeking approval to his appointment on the post of Peon.

Mr. Phule, the learned A.G.P. refers to the notification dated 24^th February, 2025, issued under the signature of the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Dhule and submits that the order passed by this Court has been complied with by

cp192.25

-2-

the contemnor - respondents.

However, Mr. Panpatte, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 10 of The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short “the Act of 2005”) and submits that this court may take cognizance of the delay caused by the contemnor - respondents in complying the order dated 11^th January, 2022.

In the first place, we may indicate that the delay in compliance of the order/direction of the court is not a ground to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 unless it is demonstrated that such delay was inordinate and intentional to overreach the order dated 11^th January, 2025 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 451 of 2022. Secondly, with reference to the Act of 2005, particularly on the basis of the provisions of Section 10 thereof, the contempt proceeding cannot be initiated against the contemnor -respondents.

The contempt petition No. 192 of 2025 is dismissed.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

rlj/