(1) 902 CP-112.2011.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 902 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 112 OF 2011 IN WP/2173/2008 SHAIKH NASEER SHAIKH HASSAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Kalyan V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent-State. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATED : 16th September, 2026 Order (Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.) : 1. In the order of which disobedience is alleged, it was directed to the petitioner to file representation to respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 was supposed to decide it within two weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner had made a representation and since it was not decided, the contempt petition was filed. 2. After issuance of notice to respondent No.2-B in the contempt petition, the petitioner failed to supply address of respondent No.2-B and hence by the conditional order dated 18.01.2013, the petition was automatically dismissed against respondent No.2-B, who was suppose to make compliance. (2) 902 CP-112.2011.odt 3. Even otherwise after the year 2013, neither the petition was circulated nor the steps were taken. 4. In view of the same, nothing survives in the contempt petition and the same is disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde