1 39cp507.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 39 CONT. PETITION NO. 507 OF 2024 IN CA/9269/2023 SHRIKSHESHTRA MAHUR GAD VIKAS MANDAL MAHUR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rajyogi Sadgugu Swamy Shivkumar Shivacharya (Party In Person) AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. U.S. Bhosale Advocate for Respondent No. 11 : Mr. S.V. Adwant ... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ. DATE : 14.07.2025. PER COURT : 1. Prima-facie, we do not find any contempt committed by the respondents, as is being claimed by the petitioner, party-in- person. 2. By order dated 09.08.2024, passed in the Civil Application No. 5485 of 2024 in Writ Petition No. 9522 of 2024, it is observed as follows : “. We find that the petitioner is systematically avoiding compliance of our order dated 05.04.2024, passed in Civil Application No. 9269/2023. As a last opportunity, we permit the petitioner to approach Respondent No. 11/Trust with an application for water connection. . List the Writ Petition on 10.09.2024 along with both the Civil Applications.” 3. When we asked the petitioner, whether he has applied 2 39cp507.24 with the respondents pursuant to the aforesaid order, he says that if it is his right, he will apply. 4. The petitioner, party in person, is not in a position to demonstrate, as to how the contempt of our order is committed by the respondents. We, therefore, find that there is no substance in the Contempt Petition. 5. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE ) ( NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ) JUDGE JUDGE mahajansb/