High Court Its Own Motion v. Dr. Sampat Kondaji Khilari

59-SMCP-2-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2026 High Court Its Own Motion .....Petitioner Vs.

Dr. Sampat Kondaji Khilari .....Respondent Mr. Sampat Khilari, Deputy Collector, Kolhapur is present. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE, RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.

DATED: 6th MAY 2026 P.C.:- 1) In response to the Order dated 22nd April 2026, Dr. Sampat Khilari, Deputy Collector, Kolhapur, is present before us. He has tendered across the bar an affidavit in reply seeking unconditional apology. 2) This Affidavit is filed in response to notice issued by this Court calling upon him to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should not be initiated against him. 3) The reasons for issuance of show cause finds place at paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the Order dated 22nd April 2026, which read thus:- "3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Respondent No.3 has made a misleading statement. He has invited our attention to annexure Exh.A filed along with the Petition. It is a mutation entry referred to by the Respondent No.3, however the second part of the mutation entry which reflects on page No.21 Sagar Magar 1/2

59-SMCP-2-2026.doc indicates that the possession as regards mutation entry in the name of Petitioners' predecessor was restored at the instance of Respondent No.3, in the light of the stay order passed by the High Court.

4. Thus, at the instance of the Respondent No.3, the mutation entry in the name of Petitioners' father was restored. This document has been suppressed by Respondent No.3. In that view of the matter, we find that the Respondent No.3 has mislead the Court, rather played fraud upon the Court."

4) The learned AGP, on instructions of Respondent No. 5, submits that the second part of the mutation entry was inadvertently not submitted. Another reason was that Writ Petition No. 2609 of 1988, in which interim relief of restoration of mutation entry was granted, was decided on 16th January 1996 and the interim relief was vacated. He submits that, thus, the original status as mentioned in the reply filed by Respondent No. 5, that possession was taken on 15th April 1988, was correct. He, however, tendered apology for not giving these details in the reply filed earlier. 5) Considering the averment made in the Affidavit which otherwise records correct status of mutation entry, we accept the apology. 6) Contempt is accordingly purged.

(RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sagar Magar 2/2