(1) 41-CP-88-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 88/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4515/2025 KIRAN SANTOSH KHANDEKAR VS ANITA MESHRAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent (s). CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. On 03.09.2026, the following order was passed : “Heard. In response to order dated 31-8-2026, Ms. Anita Nikhil Meshram, the then Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.), Z.P., Akola and now the Commissioner, VB-G RAMG, Nagpur is present in the Court. She submits that she did not receive notice issued by this Court in Form I vide order 13-7-2026 and, therefore, did not appear before the Court. In the light of aforesaid statement, we enquired with Mr. A. S. Deshpande, learned counsel, who appeared on her behalf to which he submits that he has been authorized to appear by Mr. Anay Navandar, present C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Akola. We are surprised to hear this statement. It is well defined that in contempt petition, the officials are made respondents in personal capacity. Accordingly, Ms. Anita Meshram is made party – respondent in personal capacity and, therefore, except for her, none else could have authorized counsel to represent her. Despite such status, present C.E.O. has authorized Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate to appear and more surprisingly, Mr. A. S. Deshpande appeared for Ms. Anita Meshram without her authorization. At Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:12795-DB (2) 41-CP-88-2026 least, the counsel should be aware of scope of contempt proceedings. The end result of such lapse is the strictures which we have passed against Ms. Anita Meshram in our order dated 31-8-2026. The negligence at the hands of present C.E.O. and the counsel is that we took a view that Ms. Anita Meshram is not diligent and her absence would only certify the uncalled arrogance. Accordingly, we issued non bailable warrant against her, who, as such, is not at fault. We call upon Mr. Anay Navandar, present C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Akola as to why should he not compensate Ms. Anita Meshram for the strictures, which we have passed because of the wrong committed by him. We also direct him to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the Registry of this Court within one week. The remarks made against Ms. Anita Meshram in order dated 31-8-2026 for her absence stands expunged. Order of issuing non- bailable warrant against her stands cancelled. Inform concerned police station accordingly. Ms. Anita Meshram seeks time to engage counsel. Time granted. List in the week commencing 28-9-2026.” 3. In response, Ms. Anita Meshra, the then Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Akola, is present. 4. The petitioner submits that the order under question has been complied with by the present Chief Executive Officer. 5. So far as the respondent herein is concerned, she is present and submits that notice of the proceedings has been not served upon her till today. She submits that she received phone call from the present Chief Executive Officer, so also from Mr. A.S. Deshpande, the counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, and accordingly, she signed the Vakalatnama. Thus, in a matter of contempt, the Zilla Parishad and the counsel handled the issue, which is unknown to the law. Kartikeya (3) 41-CP-88-2026 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner’s grievance has been redressed. On the point of wilful disobedience of the order, we did not find any material in the form of pleadings supported by evidence that there was wilful disobedience of the order. It is one thing to allege disobedience of the order and another to say that disobedience was wilful. 7. That being so, and since the petitioner’s grievance has been redressed, we refrain from making any further comments in the matter. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. The amount deposited by the Zilla Parishad, Akola, be returned back to the Zilla Parishad. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya