Mrs S.Mangala v. Airports Authority Of India And 23 ORS

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.55 OF 2015 in WRIT PETITION NO.2518 OF 2013 Mrs.S.Mangala

...Petitioner.

vs Airports Authority of India & ors Respondent. .....

Mrs.S.Mangala Petitioner appearing in person Mr.Ajay Khaire I/b Law Point for Respondent nos. 1 to 6, 16 to 18,20 and 24.

Mr.Anil Singh Additional Solicitor General of India a/w Mr.Sandesh Patil, Mr.D.P.Singh for Respondent no.7 to 15Union of India .....

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ.

DATE:

14 JULY, 2016.

ORDER :

We have heard the petitioner appearing- in-person and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for RespondentUnion of India. We have also gone through the written submissions and averments as made in the contempt petition. This contempt petition has been filed alleging contempt of the directions as contained in the order dated 26 August 2014 passed in writ petition No.2518 of 2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that the directions

2/3 to the respondents to implement the provisions of DoPT OM's dated 11 September 2008 as contained in the representation of the petitioner has not been complied by the respondents. The petitioner herself has annexed the communication dated 23 January 2015 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India addressed to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been informed of the implementation of the directions as contained in the orders passed by the Division Bench. The communication categorically refers that the decision as contained therein is taken on the petitioner's representation dated 10 December 2014 received by the Ministry on 16 December 2014 and that the same was considered in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 26 August 2014.

Having perused the decision of the respondents as contained in the communication dated 23 January 2015 we find that there is compliance of the orders passed by this Court and that grievance of the petitioner that there is contempt of the order dated 26 August 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2518 of 2013, cannot be entertained.

3/3 would be to assail the communication dated 23 January 2015 if she finds herself to be aggrieved by the same.

In view of the discussion, we see no reason to entertain the contempt petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (G.S.Kulkarni, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)