[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pranali Ravindra Puttewar vs Union Of India, Thr. Secy. Department Of ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
3-CP-71-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 71 OF 2026
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4722 OF 2019 (D)
(Pranali Ravindra Puttewar Vs. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Urban Housing
and Poverty Alleviation and Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. I. S. Charlewar with Mr. Bhuvanesh Raut, Counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr. J.B. Kasat, Counsel for respondent no.4.
Ms Radhika Bajaj, Counsel for respondent no.5.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
MARCH 12, 2026
Heard for some time.
2] Leave to correct address of respondent no. 6
is granted. Once address is corrected, issue notice to
respondent no. 6, returnable on 26-3-2026.
3] The argument is that the issue of alignment
of DP road was pending, and it was for this reason that
STP and transformers were not removed, as directed by
this Court vide order dated 29/4/2025 passed in Writ
Petition No. 4722/2019.
4] This stand, on the face of record, is
unacceptable, inasmuch as, the respondent no.4 has
removed the STP, without alignment having been done.
5] Respondent no.5 shall, therefore, justify his
stand that without alignment of road, the structure under
question could not have been removed. Respondent no.5
shall place on record the map depicting the location of
road then existing, location of structure under question
and the subsequent development, if any.
6] Kept back at 2:30 pm.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
7] Later on, heard at length.
8] The argument of respondent no. 5 is that
the width of DP Road has been reduced and that structure
under question is not on the road. Learned counsel for
respondent no. 5 referred to certain documents, however,
when we enquired with Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for
Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) as regards status of
the road, he invited our attention to communication
dated 3-4-2025 made by Nagpur Improvement Trust
(NIT) to NMC stating therein that DP Road under
question is 24 m wide. Thus, it appears that the road
width has been not reduced and even if, reduced, it will
not absolve respondent no. 5 from complying with the
order passed by this Court.
9] When further enquired, Mr. Kasat submits
that respondent no. 5, while applying for revised
sanction, has given undertaking to NMC that the structure
under question will be removed by him. This undertaking
is given on 21-11-2019. The said undertaking is also
noted in the order which is allegedly disobeyed by
respondent no. 5.
10] That being so, we do not find any substance
in the submissions made by respondent no. 5 that the
structure under question falls outside the proposed DP
Road. In any case and as stated earlier, such status
will not absolve him from complying with the order. He
never approached this Court to apprise of any such
development and/or to modify the order and/or to
extend the time for compliance of order. It is only when
the petitioner approached this Court, certain steps are
taken, that too, by respondent no. 4 by removing STP.
Respondent no. 5 has, for no valid reason, removed STP.
11] The submission of respondent no. 5 that he
had approached the planning authority for measurement
or other such action will be of no relevance in as much as
in none of the documents or correspondences made by
respondent no. 5 with the planning authority, reference is
made to show that the measurement/action is required
for compliance of order passed by this Court.
12] It is not known as to for what purpose,
respondent no. 5 had made correspondence for
measurement of land or for other such action. Be that as
it may, since he has not apprised this Court of this
development and since nothing is/was placed on record
to show that he made any attempt to comply order, we
are of the considered view that the inaction at the hands
of respondent no. 5 is willful, which amounts to willful
disobedience of the Court's order.
13] As such, this is not the first case where we
have noticed that Court's order is not complied with but it
appears to us that the leniency shown by the Court in
such matters has given a wrong message to the litigants
that no action is taken, even if, Court's order is not
complied with. The Courts are taken for granted, the
orders are not complied and when the other side
approaches Court in contempt jurisdiction, then only
steps are taken for compliance of order. Such a practice
cannot be permitted to continue. A clear message must
be conveyed that any disobedience of the Court's orders
will be viewed seriously.
14] We will accordingly hear respondent no. 5
on this point. Prior thereto, one final opportunity is
granted to him to put forth before us the efforts taken by
him to comply the order. So far as respondent nos. 4 and
6 are concerned, the decision will be taken in due course.
15] List for further consideration on 26-3-2026.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit/wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/03/2026 20:31:07
