Dr Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil v. State Of Maharashtra Through The Additional Chief Secretary

KSG 55-CONPW-99-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 99 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.173 OF 2024 Tarkeshwar Chandrakant Patil & Ors ... Petitioners V/s.

State of Maharashtra & Ors ... Respondents _______________________________________ Mr. Nitesh Nevshe (Legal Aid Counsel) a/w Ms. Shweta Nevshe, Mr. Adarsh Patole for the Petitioner No.1 (POA Holder of Petitioners No.2 to 5) present in person.

Mr. Manish Upadhye, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State. _______________________________________ CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND SHYAM C. CHANDAK, JJ.

DATE : 25th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C. :

1) This Contempt Petition alleges contempt of directions issued in Paragraph No.4 of Order dated 6th December, 2023, in Writ Petition (L) No.3679 of 2023. Paragraph No.4 of the said Order reads as under :- Digitally signed by KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE Date:

2026.03.04 20:03:46 +0530 KIRAN SANJAY GHUGE "4.

As regards the representations which are being made by the Petitioner's father to the statutory authorities are concerned, no decision are rendered thereupon and at this stage it is not necessary for us to comment on the merits of the same except directing the authorities to look into the same as per law and, if any action is warranted in facts and law to proceed further. Order accordingly."

1/2

KSG 55-CONPW-99-2025.doc 2) Mr. Shirish A. Sapkal, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Registrar, N-Ward, Mumbai, has filed a detailed reply dated 24th March, 2023 to the Petition. To the said reply various communications and or Orders passed by the concerned Authorities of Co-operative Department are annexed. 3) Perusal of record indicates that, the concern Authorities of the Co-operative Department have in fact looked into the grievance/complaints of the Petitioners as per the provisions of law and have adopted necessary majors.

4) It is the insistence of the Petitioners that, as per the Complaints, the concerned persons must be subjected to further inquiries and or the rigors of law under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. We are unable to accept such a contention. The Respondent Authorities have in fact complied with the directions by the said para. According to us, no contempt at all as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out.

5) Even otherwise we find that, no contempt at all is committed by any of the Authorities of the Respondents.

6) Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.

( SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. ) 2/2