MANUBHAI HARGOVANDAS PATEL vs ADVOCATE A M KULKARNI AND ANR

1. The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous by order dated 19th June 2025. However, in view of the derogatory remarks made by the petitioner, making baseless allegations of corruption against the concerned District Judge, the petitioner Page no. 1 of 21 5-wp-6969-2023-iast-23991-2025.doc was called upon to explain as to why a contempt action, including an action of criminal contempt, should not be initiated against him. The matter was accordingly directed to be listed on 23rd July 2025. On 23rd July 2025, the petitioner, who appeared in person, sought time on the ground that he was unwell. Hence, it was directed to be listed on 26 th August 2025. It is necessary to clarify that the contempt action was not initiated. But to allow the petitioner to rectify his actions, I found it fit to call upon the petitioner to explain why the action for criminal contempt should not be initiated. 2. On 26th August 2025, the petitioner tendered a copy of an application stating that this court should recuse from this matter as he does not have faith in this court. Since this cannot be a reason to recuse from the matter, I refused the petitioner’s request. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted