← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/91/2018

Shri. Baburao Namdeo Navghane Thr.Constituted Poa. Shri. Kedarnath Nagnath Swami v. Shri. Sunil Thorve And ORS.

2018-08-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.A. Sayed,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.C. Gupte2 pages

sg cp89,90,91,92-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.89 OF 2018 Shri. Krishna Jyoti Sapkal, Thr. Constituted POA Shri Ramesh Namdeo Asabe ..

Petitioner V/s.

Shri. Sunil Thorve And Ors.

..

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.90 OF 2018 Shri. Dnyandeo Deoba Bhosale, Thr. Constituted POA Shri Rahul Ashok Dhavale ..

Petitioner V/s.

Shri. Sunil Thorve And Ors.

..

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.91 OF 2018 Shri. Baburao Namdeo Navghane, Thr. Constituted POA Shri Kedarnath Nagnath Swami ..

Petitioner V/s.

Shri. Sunil Thorve And Ors.

..

Respondents WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.92 OF 2018 Shri. Janu Ramchandra Jadhav, Thr. Constituted POA Shri Ramesh Namdeo Asabe ..

Petitioner V/s.

Shri. Sunil Thorve And Ors.

..

Respondents ....

Shri I.M. Khairadi, for the Petitioners in all Contempt Petitions. Ms. Pushplata Diwan, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. ....

sg cp89,90,91,92-18.doc CORAM: A.A. SAYED & S.C. GUPTE, JJ.

DATE : 28 AUGUST, 2018.

P.C.:

.

The Contempt Petitions allege breach of the order dated 31 January 2017, whereby the Rehabilitation Officer was directed to treat the Writ Petitions as Representations and consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the order.

2.

It is an admitted position that a decision has now been taken on 9 April 2018 by the Rehabilitation Officer. In the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 by Tahsildar (Rehabilitation), Solapur reference is made to a Civil Application which was filed for extension of time. Moreover, the Affidavit in Reply contains an unconditional apology for not complying with the order within time. 3.

Since a decision has been taken and the order dated 31 January 2017 now stands complied, we accept the apology on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction, in our opinion, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4.

The Contempt Petitions are dismissed.

(S.C. GUPTE,J.) (A.A. SAYED,J.) Smita Johnson Gonsalves Smita Johnson Gonsalves Date: 2018.09.05 14:11:07 +0530