Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

RAJGURU 2025.10.04

5-wp-6969-2023-iast-23991-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY varsha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6969 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION(ST) NO. 23991 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION(ST) NO. 29058 OF 2025 Manubhai Hargovandas Patel … Petitioner/Applicant vs.

City and Industrial Development … Respondent Corporation through its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Mr. Manubhai H. Patel, Petitioner in person.

Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, for Respondent on VC.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 30th SEPTEMBER 2025 ORDER:

1. The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous by order dated 19^th 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 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 23^rd July 2025. On 23^rd 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 26^th 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 that he would file an application for the transfer of the matter to another court. Considering the earlier order dated 19^th June 2025, and in view of the seriousness of the matter, I refused to adjourn the matter. Hence, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the application for recusal and also sought leave to withdraw his statement that he intends to file an application for transfer.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner stated that he had filed an application for taking action of perjury. He requested time to place on record a copy of the judgment of this court to support his submission that if an application for perjury is filed, it has to be decided before hearing the contempt notice. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, the application dated 26^th August 2025, tendered by him requesting recusal by this court, was returned to him. The petitioner was also permitted to withdraw his request for recusal, and his statement was accepted that he does not wish to apply for transfer.

4. By order dated 26^th August 2025, it was clarified that by the last order, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why the contempt action, including the action of criminal contempt, should not be initiated. Since the petitioner had already filed an affidavit-in-reply, it was further clarified that on the next date, the issue as to whether the contempt action is necessary would be decided after hearing the petitioner. To enable the petitioner to place on record the copies of judgments that he wished to rely upon, the petition was adjourned for today.

5. Today, the petitioner has tendered a fresh application that this court should recuse from the matter. The application tendered by the petitioner is taken on record. He submits that only the EC number is generated, and the filing number is not given to his application. Along with the application for recusal, the petitioner has attached a copy of a letter dated 11^th July 2025 addressed to the Hon’ble President of India, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court. The copy of the application annexed at page 15 contains derogatory remarks against this court. In the copy of the application tendered today, there is an unnumbe