Satyawan Ramachnadra Thokale v. The State Of Maharashtra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (SR NO.908) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.554 OF 2024 Hanumant Shankar Kumbhar & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.909) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.555 OF 2024 Ashok Dhodiba Meher & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.910) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.556 OF 2024 Vivekanand Mallesha Pattedar & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.911) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.558 OF 2024 Sidheshwar Mahadeo Randive & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.912) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.559 OF 2024 Sayajirao Baliram Waghmare ....Petitioner AND (SR. NO.913) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.560 OF 2024
Ganesh Shantappa Warshetti & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.914) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.561 OF 2024 Sachin Bhimrao Gore & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.915) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.562 OF 2024 Netaji Bajrand Jadhav & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.916) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.563 OF 2024 Nagendrayya Panchalingyya Hiremath & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.917) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.564 OF 2024 Shrishail Devanand Hele & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.918) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.565 OF 2024 Satyawan Ramachnadra Thokale & Ors.
AND (SR. NO.153) CONTEMPT PETITION NO.269 OF 2024
Karan Sanjay Lokhande & Ors.
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 : 25th FEBRUARY, 2025 P.C. :- 1.
In all these matters, we had issued simple notice on 14th October, 2025, keeping in view that the accused-Contemnor was the CEO of the Solapur Zilla Parishad, who had taken charge just
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. 2.
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.
3.
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. 4.
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
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.
5.
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.)