1 913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012 IN WP/3971/2010 VENKAT KISHANRAO SONDARE VERSUS EKNATH BALA PATIL AND ORS ... Adv. M.S.Karad, Advocate for the Petitioner Adv. S. J. Salgare, AGP for Respondents-State ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 09/09/2026 ORDER (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.) :- . Though the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to take instructions, but the report of the Resource Personnel indicates that the petitioner was not either in the array of petitioners or respondents in Writ Petition No.3971 of 2010 and he was permitted to intervene in the Writ Petition. Furthermore, Mr.Hedau was not arrayed as respondent-contemnor in the Contempt Petition. From the clause title of this Contempt Petition, it is clear that age of the petitioner in the year 2010 was 56 years and he might have retired on superannuation during pendency of the instant Contempt Petition. The petitioner has not circulated the Contempt Petition after 15.04.2013. 2026:BHC-AUG:42139 2 913 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2012 2. As per the report, the age of petitioner in the year 2010 was 56 years. By this time, the petitioner must have retired from service. 3. In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same stands disposed of. ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) shivani/