964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025 IN WP/964/2024 Amol Sheshrao Chavan Versus Sanjay Shrirang Ghodake And Others __________________________________________________________ • Petitioner namely Chavan Amol Sheshrao is party in person • Mr. N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for State • Adv. Avinash N. Irpatgire for Respondent No. 1 __________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner, who is party in person, is seeking action against Respondent No. 1 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, since Respondent No. 1 did not comply with the order dated 05.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 964 of 2024. 3) On going through the said order, it appears that this Court had expressed its opinion that if there is no legal impediment in allowing the petitioner to work as Law Officer, he be permitted to discharge his duties. Komal Kamble Page| 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:42161 964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025 4) However, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3-management submits that the aforesaid order was passed as an interim order and, at that time also, it was pointed out to this Court that no such post of Law Officer exists in the institution and, therefore, there cannot be any contempt for not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to discharge his duties as Law Officer. 5) It is significant to note that the main petition is still pending, wherein reply has also been filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, mentioning that no such post of Law Officer exists in the institution. 6) It is contended that the petitioner was, in fact, appointed as a Junior Clerk, but considering his degree of LL.B., he was assigned the work of the legal department and to supervise the Court work also. It is further contended that such assignment of legal work does not mean that he was appointed as Law Officer. 7) When asked, the petitioner could not point out any document annexed to the main petition under which it can be said that he was appointed as Law Officer in the institution. Komal Kamble Page| 2 of 3 964 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 516 OF 2025 8) On the contrary, the petitioner himself admitted that, as there was no post of Law Officer, he was appointed as a Junior Clerk. Thus, it has been sufficiently made clear that there was no sanctioned post of Law Officer in the institution of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9) Under such circumstances, the order under contempt, which is purely interim in nature, cannot be implemented for want of a sanctioned post of Law Officer. Further, the order under contempt is not a direction, but merely an opinion expressed by this Court that if there is no legal impediment, then the petitioner can be allowed to work as Law Officer. 10) As such, there cannot be any contempt of such order for want of a sanctioned post of Law Officer. The petitioner can agitate his grievance in the pending writ petition. 11) Therefore, we do not find any reason to continue with this contempt petition, as there is no contempt, in our opinion. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) JUDGE (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE Komal Kamble Page| 3 of 3