Dismissed¶19

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (through Government Pleader)

Bombay HC27 Feb 2026CP/771/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition dismissed; Contempt of Courts Act 1971; mere delay in complying with court order not a ground for contempt; Collector Mumbai Suburban District; survey notice; encroachment on IIT Bombay Powai land; PIL No. 148 of 2024; Shabbir Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra; compliance shown by Collector's order dated 24 November 2025; Article 226 Constitution of India; question of fact; bench of Shree Chandrashekhar CJ and Gautam A. Ankhad J; Bombay High Court, 2 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Mere delay in complying with the Court's order shall not be a ground to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. ¶13

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (through… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

BDP

¶2

6 CP-771-25.doc

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

¶4

Digitally signed byBHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.04.06 13:37:20 +0530

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 771 OF 2025 IN

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.148 OF 2024

¶7

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh ….Petitioner. V/s State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Laxman K. Kalel, advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, G.P. with Mr. K.B. Dighe, Addl. G.P. with Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the respondent nos. 1, 5 and 9. Mr. Dnyaneshwar K. Sawalkar, advocate for the respondent no.2-IIT, Bombay.

¶9

Mr. Santosh Parad with Mr. Santosh Mali, advocates for the respondent no.3-BMC.

¶10

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶11

DATE : 2^nd APRIL 2026

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

In Public Interest Litigation No.148 of 2024, by an order dated 7^th May 2025, a direction was issued by this Court to the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District to issue notice to the parties for carrying out survey to ascertain the encroachment on the subject land. According to Mr. Laxman Kalel, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by this Court has not yet been complied with by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District. However, mere delay in complying with the Court’s order shall not be a ground to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The order dated 7^th May 2025 records that whether the land belonging to IIT Bombay, Powai has been encroached upon by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 is a

6 CP-771-25.doc

BDP

question of fact which cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As we gather on a glance at the order dated 7^th May 2025, the respondent no.8 was not represented through its counsel.

¶18

However, Mr. K. B. Dighe, the learned Additional Government Pleader states that the order dated 7^th May 2025 has been complied with. He has tendered a copy of the order dated 24^th November 2025 passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, which is taken on record.

¶19

In view thereof, Contempt Petition No.771 of 2025 is dismissed.

¶20

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶21

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (through Government Pleader)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabbir Abdul Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (through Government Pleader)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vinita Gawde vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prime Toll and Metal Recoveris Private Limited vs Development Commissioner

Kinjal Api Sheth Jv a Joint Venture vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Gtl Limited through Milind Bapat vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.