Sumala Shankar Chavan v. V. Sounderarajan The Additional Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2014 Sumala S. Chavan

...Petitioner

Versus

V. Sounderarajan and ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the Petitioner.

Mr. A.C. Singh, ASG a/w. Mrs. Anjali Helekar i/b mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.

CORAM : SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, Acting C.J. & M. S. SONAK, J.

DATE : APRIL 9, 2018.

P.C.

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2] In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleges noncompliance of the judgment and order dated 4th February 2015 in Writ Petition No. 1357 of 2014, the operative portion of which reads as follows "ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(ii) The Petitioners to comply with Order dated 4 September 2013 as early as possible and preferably within three months.

(iii) Rule is discharged accordingly.

(iv) There shall be no order as to costs."

D.S.Sherla page 1 of 3

3] In effect, therefore, what is alleged is non-compliance by the respondents with the order dated 4th September 2017 made by the CAT in O.A. No. 747 of 2014. 4] Mr. Anil C. Singh, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India for the respondents, has placed on record an order dated 2nd April 2018 appointed /regularising the petitioner has multi tasking staff. He has also placed on record the petitioner's joining report dated 6th April 2018. Both these documents are taken on record and marked as "X" and "Y" for purpose of identification.

5] In view of the aforesaid, we do not deem it appropriate to continue the present contempt proceedings.

6] Mr. Ramamamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are certain other compliances which remain. This is disputed by learned Addl. Solicitor General.

D.S.Sherla page 2 of 3

7] In the present proceedings, we do not propose to go into such issues. If at all, the petitioner, has any further grievances with regard to execution of the CAT's order dated 4th September 2013, then, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to other remedies available to him under the law, including, but not restricted to the remedy of execution as provided in section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

8] With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of this contempt petition.

(M.S. SONAK, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) D.S.Sherla page 3 of 3