Sidheshwar Mahadeo Randive vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Sectretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sidheshwar Mahadeo Randive vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Sectretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All Contempt Petitions disposed of on the statement of the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, that the Petitioners' grievance regarding payment of monthly salaries will be redressed within 45 days; with a recorded direction that failure to honour the statement, necessitating fresh Contempt Petitions, would result in the concerned Officers' conduct being treated as aggravated contempt.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondents were guilty of delay in implementing the orders of this Court directing payment of the Petitioners' monthly salaries, warranting action in contempt. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Contempt Petitions are disposed of in the light of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, that the Petitioners' grievance will be redressed within 45 days.

Key takeaways

It is recorded that if the statement is not honoured by the concerned Authority and the Petitioners are required to once again prefer Contempt Petitions, the conduct of the concerned Officers will be treated as acts amounting to aggravated contempt.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ghughge and Bhobe, JJ.), by order dated 25 February 2025, disposed of twelve Contempt Petitions (CP Nos. 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565 and 269 of 2024) alleging delay in implementing orders passed under the writ jurisdiction directing payment of monthly salaries to the Petitioners, the accused-Contemnor being the CEO of the Solapur Zilla Parishad who had taken charge about a month before notice was issued. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 tendered an apology for the delay, attributed to change in administration and paucity of funds. The Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, undertook that the Petitioners' grievance would be redressed within 45 days. Counsel for the Petitioners confirmed satisfaction but sought a record that any further default forcing a second Contempt Petition be treated as aggravated contempt. The Court disposed of the Petitions on that statement, recording that non-honouring of the statement would lead to the conduct of the concerned Officers being treated as acts amounting to aggravated contempt.

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

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

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

1 of 5

Kartikeya

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

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

AND

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

2 of 5

Kartikeya

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

&

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

P.C. :-

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

3 of 5

Kartikeya

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

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.

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.

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.

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

4 of 5

Kartikeya

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

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.

In view of the above, these Contempt Petitions are

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.

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

5 of 5

Kartikeya