Sun Publicity v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Th Its Municipal Commissioner

903-CP.691.2025.doc JVS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date:

2026.02.02 11:09:28 +0530 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4806 OF 2024 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Vishal J. Pallod } Petitioner

Versus

Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation } & Ors.

} Respondents Mr. Mohammed Zain Khan with Mr. Ashraf Kapoor i/b. One Legal, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni with Mr. Abhishek Roy, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4.

CORAM:

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & SUMAN SHYAM, J.

DATE:

23rd JANUARY 2026 P.C.:

Alleging wilful violation of the order dated 25th March 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 4806 of 2024, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondent -contemnors under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2.

Mr. Mohammed Zain Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a delay in complying with the writ Court's order and there is no explanation coming forth from the respondent-contemnors. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the non-compliance of the writ Court's order by the respondent-contemnors can be easily gathered on a glance at the orders dated 5th May 2025 and 7th May 2025 passed by the respondent no. 1-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and the

903-CP.691.2025.doc respondent no. 2-Pune Municipal Corporation respectively in purported compliance of this Court's order. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, indicates that the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the letter dated 1st February 2024 refusing to grant no-objection/permission to the petitioner for construction/ erection of cantilevers/unipole at BRTS corridor route. 3.

Without reflecting on the merits of the aforesaid orders and, in fact, that this Court cannot adjudicate the validity of those orders in a contempt proceeding, this contempt case is disposed of observing that mere delay in reporting compliance of the order passed by the Court shall not be a ground to initiate the contempt proceedings.

4.

Contempt Petition No. 691 of 2025 is disposed of. [SUMAN SHYAM, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]