(1) 40-CP-337-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 337/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3237/2021 SHRI. NILKANTH S/O. TULSHIRAM KULSANGE VS SHRI. MANDAR PATKI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PARISHAD, YAVATMAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The order of which contempt is alleged, i.e., the order dated 14.08.2025, reads as under: “1. A limited grievance of the petitioner is that after 2013, no meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held by the respondents and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was denied by not holding DPC. It is submitted that, this petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to hold DPC and consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion. 2. Mr. Tajne, learned counsel for the respondents is not disputing the fact that no meeting of DPC has been held after 2013. In that view of the matter, we disposed of the present writ petition with direction to the respondents to hold DPC as per the provisions of law and if the petitioner is eligible for promotion, his claim may be considered for promotion.” 3. As could be seen, the respondents were directed to hold the DPC, and if found eligible for promotion, the petitioner’s claim was to be considered. 4. When we inquired with the petitioner’s counsel as to whether the DPC has been held, he answered in the affirmative. The grievance, however, is that not the petitioner, but someone else has been promoted. 5. If that be so, we do not find that the order under question has been not complied with, rather, the order has been fully complied Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11813-DB (2) 40-CP-337-2026 with. The order doesn’t indicate, nor does it suggest, that the petitioner should be promoted. What is ordered is to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion, which naturally will mean that if he is not eligible, will not be considered for promotion. 6. That being so, it cannot be contended that the order passed by this Court has been disobeyed, much less wilfully disobeyed. The order, according to us, stands complied with. There is no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya