Annu Pyarelal Sinsinwar v. Praful Patel, Honble Administrator, Union Territory Of Dadra Dn Nagar Haveli

Prajakta Vartak

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.117 OF 2021 Annu Pyarelal Sinsinwar

...Petitioner

vs.

Mr.Praful Patel, Hon'ble Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu & Ors.

...Respondents

.....

Ms.Varsha Palav with Mr.Ajinkya Palav and Mr.Anuj Tiwari i/b. The Laureate for petitioner.

Mr.Hiten Venegavkar for Respondent/UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli.

.....

CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & G. S. KULKARNI, J.

DATE :- APRIL 29, 2021.

PC :

1.

In compliance with our earlier order, an affidavit dated April 27, 2021 has been filed on behalf of the alleged contemnors/respondents.

2.

We have read the affidavit. It appears that the alleged contemnors/respondents having decided to approach the Supreme Court under Article of the Constitution challenging our judgment and order dated February 27, 2021, did not comply with the directions contained therein 1/3

immediately; however, upon receipt of the petition for contempt, it has been decided by the alleged contemnors/respondents to comply with the judgment and order dated February 27, 2021 and admit the petitioner in the 1st year of the MMBS course. According to them, in the process, there has been some delay in admitting the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in such judgment and order, which is unintentional. 3.

The explanation furnished by the alleged contemnors/ respondents for delayed compliance is accepted. Since it is not in dispute at the bar that the petitioner has been admitted in the medical course, we dispose of this petition for contempt observing that the alleged contemnors/respondents shall be free to pursue their remedy in accordance with law. 4.

Since the petitioner might have lost out on attending certain classes, a prayer has been made on her behalf by Ms.Palav, learned counsel for suitable direction so that she does not face any hurdle in future for shortage of attendance in classes. Mr.Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the alleged contemnors/respondents submits that appropriate measures would be taken so that the petitioner is not deprived of requisite 2/3

attendance. In this connection, he has submitted that extra classes would be conducted for her to make up the deficiency. 5.

The statement of Mr.Venegaonkar is accepted. No further/other order is required to be passed. 6.

There shall be no order for costs.

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) 3/3