Ratan Soli Luth v. The State Of Maharashtra

33.630.25-cp.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.630 OF 2025 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.205 OF 2023 Shri Ratan Soli Luth .. Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents ...

Mr. Gaurav Srivastva with Mr. Abhijit Kasar, Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Kedar Dighe, Additional Government Pleader with Mrs. Vrishali Raje, AGP for the RespondentState Mr. M. A. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.10. ...

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

DATE : 9th OCTOBER 2025 P.C. :

Affidavit of service dated 9th October2025 is taken on record. 2.

Aggrieved by non-compliance of the order dated 13th June 2025 passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.205 of 2025, the present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking initiation of proceedings against the contemnor-respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3.

Mr. Gaurav Srivastva, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no notice was issued to the petitioner and the exercise which was to be completed within 12 weeks was not carried out in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 13th June 2025 in Public Interest Litigation No.205 of 2025. In the said bgp Page | 1

33.630.25-cp.docx order this Court issued a direction to the Municipal Commissioner/Collector, Nashik to carry out survey exercise to ascertain encroachment on the land in question. In the said order, this Court also issued a direction to the Municipal Corporation/Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the parties and to submit documents in support of their claim. Now this expression "their claim" cannot be construed to mean as if the petitioner was also required to be heard and was at liberty to produce any document. Such a direction was issued by this Court to protect the rights and interest of the persons who were allegedly under unauthorised possession of the subject land. Moreover, mere delay in compliance of the order passed by this Court shall not lay foundation to initiate the contempt proceedings. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, Contempt JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Petition No. 630 of 2025 is dismissed.

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.11.11 12:34:33 +0530 [GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] bgp Page | 2