Swami Samarth Enterprises Through Proprietor A B Nagwade v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Manojkumr K Shrivastava The Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:6214-DB 1 CP / 59 / 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 989 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 59 OF 2020 IN WP/5281/2019 SWAMI SAMARTH ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR A.B. NAGWADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH MANOJKUMR K SHRIVASTAVA, THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Ashwin V. Hon Addl.GP for the respondent - State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 20 MARCH 2024 PC :

Heard.

2.

By the order of which implementation is being sought, the petitioner who was awarded a contract for excavation of sand was waiting for the refund and his application was directed to be decided on its own merits.

3.

The learned AGP points out that decision on the petitioner's application was taken long back and even an amount of Rs.36,61,538/- was refunded to him.

4.

Learned advocate for the petitioner would point out that in a similar matter, a Division Bench at the Principal Seat in a contempt proceeding only, directed interest to be paid for delayed refund.

2 CP / 59 / 2020 5.

We cannot go into the aspect which is now being sought to be relied upon in respect of the order passed in some unconnected matter at Principal Seat.

6.

The impugned order merely directed the respondents to take a decision on the petitioner's application seeking refund. That has been done and the money has been refunded. Nothing survives. 7.

Contempt petition is disposed of.

8.

It would always be open for the petitioner to agitate a fresh grievance independently.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/