Disposed¶32

Karan Sanjay Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary

Bombay HC25 Feb 2025CP/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court contempt petitions 2024 (CP Nos. 554-565 and 269 of 2024); Solapur Zilla Parishad CEO as accused-contemnor; non-compliance with writ-jurisdiction orders for payment of monthly salaries; apology by Respondent Nos.1-4; paucity of funds; 45-day redressal undertaking by Additional Government Pleader; aggravated contempt warning; disposed 25 February 2025; Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe.

What did the court decide?

All contempt petitions disposed of on the strength of the Additional Government Pleader's statement on instructions that the grievance (non-payment of monthly salaries) would be redressed within 45 days; the Court recorded that failure to honour the statement, necessitating fresh contempt petitions, would be treated as aggravated contempt. ¶32

Karan Sanjay Lokhande vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the contempt petitions alleging non-payment of monthly salaries pursuant to earlier writ-jurisdiction orders should be closed on the basis of the apology tendered and the Additional Government Pleader's undertaking to redress the grievance within 45 days, and what consequence follows if compliance again fails and fresh contempt petitions become necessary.

¶39

Court's answer

All the contempt petitions (CP Nos. 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565 and 269 of 2024) are disposed of in light of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader on instructions that the Petitioners' grievance will be redressed within 45 days.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

If the statement made is not honoured by the concerned Authority and the Petitioners are required to prefer fresh contempt petitions in this Court, the conduct of the concerned Officers would be treated as acts amounting to aggravated contempt.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ.), 25 February 2025: Twelve contempt petitions (CP Nos. 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565 and 269 of 2024) filed by several Petitioners against the State of Maharashtra and other Respondents, including Respondent No.5-Solapur ZP, over delayed implementation of orders passed under the Writ jurisdiction of the Court directing payment of monthly salaries, are disposed of. On an earlier date the Court had issued simple notice, observing that the accused-Contemnor was the CEO of the Solapur Zilla Parishad. At the hearing, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 tendered an apology for the delay, attributed to reasons including change in administration and paucity of funds, and the learned Additional Government Pleader stated on instructions that the Petitioners' grievance would be redressed within 45 days, leaving no cause to approach the Court again. The Petitioners, stating they were satisfied, requested that future non-compliance be treated as aggravated contempt; the Court disposed of the petitions in light of the statement and recorded that if it is not honoured and fresh contempt petitions are required, the conduct of the concerned Officers would be treated as acts amounting to aggravated contempt.

¶1

908---918+153-CP-554-2024.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

(SR NO.908) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.554 OF 2024

¶4

Hanumant Shankar Kumbhar & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.909) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.555 OF 2024 Ashok Dhodiba Meher & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.910) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.556 OF 2024 Vivekanand Mallesha Pattedar & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.911) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.558 OF 2024 Sidheshwar Mahadeo Randive & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.912) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.559 OF 2024 Sayajirao Baliram Waghmare ….Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶5

AND (SR. NO.913) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.560 OF 2024

¶6

1 of 5

¶7

Kartikeya

¶8

908---918+153-CP-554-2024.odt

¶9

Ganesh Shantappa Warshetti & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.914) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.561 OF 2024 Sachin Bhimrao Gore & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.915) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.562 OF 2024 Netaji Bajrand Jadhav & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.916) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.563 OF 2024 Nagendrayya Panchalingyya Hiremath & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.917) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.564 OF 2024 Shrishail Devanand Hele & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents AND (SR. NO.918) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.565 OF 2024 Satyawan Ramachnadra Thokale & Ors. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

(SR. NO.153) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.269 OF 2024

¶12

2 of 5

¶13

Kartikeya

¶14

908---918+153-CP-554-2024.odt

¶15

Karan Sanjay Lokhande & Ors. versus	….Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	….Respondents

¶16

Mr. Pramod A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶17

Mr. Ashok Misal , Advocate for the Respondent No.5-Solapur ZP in CP/554/2024, CP/555/2024, CP/556/2024, CP/558/2024 and CP/559/2024.

¶18

Mr. Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.5-Solapur ZP in CP/560/2024, CP/561/2024, CP/562/2024, CP/563/2024, CP/564/2024, CP/565/2024 and CP/269/2024.

¶19

Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for Respondent-State in CP/554/2024, CP/555/2024, CP/556/2024, CP/558/2024, CP/559/2024

¶20

Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP, for Respondent-State in CP/560/2024, CP/561/2024, CP/562/2024, CP/563/2024, CP/564/2024, CP/565/2024.

¶21

Mr. K.S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for Respondent-State.

¶22

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

¶23

¶24

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ. DATE : 25^th FEBRUARY, 2025

¶25

P.C. :-

¶26

In all these matters, we had issued simple notice on 14^th October, 2025, keeping in view that the accused-Contemnor was the CEO of the Solapur Zilla Parishad, who had taken charge just

¶27

3 of 5

¶28

Kartikeya

¶29

908---918+153-CP-554-2024.odt

¶30

one month prior to the date on which we issued the notice. In our said order, we had observed that the Respondents are at liberty to comply with the order and ensure that the monthly salaries are paid.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits on instructions that, Respondent Nos.1 to 4, at the very outset, tender an apology for the delay caused in implementing this order. He further submits that because of reasons attributable to change in administration, etc and paucity of funds, that there was a delay in complying with the orders.

¶32

The learned Additional Government Pleader submits on specific instructions that the grievance of these Petitioners would be redressed within a period of 45 days and there would be no cause for the Petitioners to again approach this Court making out a grievance of non-compliance of any order of the Court.

¶33

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits on instructions that the Petitioners are satisfied. He, however, requests that this Court may record that if, unfortunately, any of the Respondents do not comply with the orders passed under the Writ

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

Kartikeya

¶36

908---918+153-CP-554-2024.odt

¶37

jurisdiction of this Court, and if a second Contempt Petition is required to be filed, the conduct of the concerned Officer should be treated as aggravated contempt.

¶38

In view of the above, these Contempt Petitions are

¶39

disposed off in the light of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions. Needless to state, if the statement made is not honoured by the concerned Authority and if the Petitioners are required to once again prefer Contempt Petitions in this Court, we would treat the conduct of the concerned Officers as acts amounting to aggravated contempt.

¶40

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶41

5 of 5

¶42

Kartikeya

Karan Sanjay Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Sanjay Lokhande v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gajanan Dwarkanath Nanche and Ors. vs the State of Maharasntra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Swapnil Pradip Puri and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of W. D and Ors.

Rushikesh Suresh Hiray vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Maharashtra

Vishal Kumar vs Union Bank of India

M Michael Raj vs the State of Maharashtra