Sangita Dharamsing Ade v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

908.cp.59.19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 908 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.59 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1280 OF 2016 SANGITA DHARAMSING ADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R. D. Biradar AGP for Respondent : Mr. S. S. Dande ...

CORAM

:

PRASANNA B. VARALE AND S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.

DATE :

7th February, 2019 ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is under an erroneous imprison of disobedience of the order of this Court. The Contempt Petition revolves around the directions of this Court dated 09.01.2017. These directions were at the interim stage and were two fold. Firstly, on the backdrop of certain statements made in the affidavit-in-reply and then same stipulated directions during pendency of the petition.

2.

It is not in dispute that this Petition No. 1280/2016, wherein, interim order dated 09.01.2017 was passed, ultimately, was 1/2

908.cp.59.19.odt decided and disposed of by this Court by an order dated 06.09.2017. In the final order of this Court, there are no directions and it can be safely said that it is the settled position of law that the interim order/direction emerges in the final order and in view of these facts and particularly in view of disposal of the petition finally, we are unable to pursued ourself to entertain the contempt petition on the alleged disobedience of an interim order. Thus, petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same is accordingly disposed.

3.

Learned Counsel for petitioner, on instructions, prays for withdrawal of the petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of accordingly.

(S. M. GAVHANE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) habeeb 2/2