V.K. Mahadik vs Anuradha Manjhi on 19 February, 2026

Supreme Court – Daily Orders

V.K. Mahadik vs Anuradha Manjhi on 19 February, 2026

Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

                                                                 1

                                           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7894 OF 2010

                         V.K. MAHADIK                                                        Appellant(s)

                                                              VERSUS

                         ANURADHA MANJHI & ANR.                                              Respondent(s)

                                                              WITH

                                           CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8257 OF 2010


                                                           O R D E R

1. These appeals under Section 19(1)(b) of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, are filed against the

impugned Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2010 passed by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in

Contempt Petition No. 296 of 2010, by which the

appellant(s) have been held guilty for violation of

order dated 31.08.2008 in Writ Petition No. 6876 of

2009.

2. The High Court has imposed a fine of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) on each of the

contemnors and further directed that out of the

aforesaid amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs, a sum of Rs. 2000/-

each to be treated as fine under Section 10 read with

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2026.02.27
fine has been directed to be deposited within a period
18:07:52 IST
Reason:

of eight weeks, failing which the appellant(s) shall

be directed to undergo imprisonment for four months.
2

3. The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals

are that the appellant is the Director in R.D.Gargi

Medical College, Ujjain [in Civil Appeal No.

7894/2010], an unaided medical college. The appellant

was arrayed as a contemnor in the High Court. The

Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated

31.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 6876 of 2009

(PIL) directed the Director, Medical Education to

reduce 21 seats from the Management Quota of the

R.D.Gargi Medical College, Ujjain.

4. The State Counselling Committee, by an order

dated 01.09.2009, decided to allocate 61 seats to the

State. Thereafter, the State Counselling Committee

calculated and reduced the seats of R.D.Gargi Medical

College in the following manner :-

     Category                                     Seats
     Total Intake                                 100
     Deduction   for   State                      100-21 = 79
     Quota   as   per  order
     dated   04.09.2008   of
     this Hon’ble Court and
     order dated 22.04.2008
     of the Hon’ble High
     Court
     Deduction of 15% NRI                         79-15=64
     Quota
     State Quota                                  32 (50% of 64)
     College Quota through                        32 (50% of 64)
     Association


5.    Respondent     No.1,       thereupon,      filed   the     Contempt

Petition No. 296 of 2010 on the ground that Respondent
3

No. 2, the then Director of Medical Education, State

of Madhya Pradesh has violated the directions

contained in the order of the Division Bench dated

31.08.2009.

6. The Division Bench, by an order dated 30.07.2010,

held the appellant(s) guilty of the violation of the

directions issued on 31.08.2009, as in the opinion of

the High Court, the appellant(s) had wrongly

calculated the seats while reducing the seats from the

Management Quota of the R.D. Gargi Medical College.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

length. In the opinion of the High Court, there may be

another way of calculation of seats for reduction from

the management quota of R.D. Gargi Medical College.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

we are satisfied that there is no element of wilful

disobedience on the part of the appellant. Therefore,

no case for contempt is made out.

8. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned

order dated 30.07.2010 is quashed and set aside. In

the result, the appeals are allowed.

……………………………………………………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

……………………………………………………………………J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 19, 2026.

                                    4

ITEM NO.103                 COURT NO.6                  SECTION III

                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                    Civil Appeal   No(s).   7894/2010

V.K. MAHADIK                                            Appellant(s)

                                   VERSUS

ANURADHA MANJHI . & ANR.                                Respondent(s)

WITH

C.A. No. 8257/2010 (III)

Date : 19-02-2026 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR
Mr. Peeyush Katara, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, Adv.

Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Palash Pareek, Adv.

Ms. Ankita Dutta, Adv.

Mr. Lohit Panchal, Adv.

Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR

Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

1. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.

2. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed

of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NIDHI WASON)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)