Prashant Prakashchand Bora v. Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) And Others

1 Contempt Petn. No. 146/2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1809 of 2017 Prashant S/o Prakashchandra Bora, age 41 years occupation business R/o Flat No. 3, Manohari Apartment, Sahayognagar, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad.

...APPLICANT

VERSUS

1.

Shri Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) Through : The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad 2.

The Police Inspector, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad (City) .

3.

Dnyaneshwar S/o Bhagchand Thombre, age 44 years occupation business R/o Pandhari Pimpalgaon Taluka & District Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS Mr Milind K. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr D.R. Kale, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, AND SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, JJ.

DATE : 15th March 2018 ORAL ORDER :

Heard Mr Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2 Contempt Petn. No. 146/2018 2.

Grievance of the petitioner is that Order passed by The Division Bench of This Court in Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2017 dated 23rd January 2018 is not complied with.

3.

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted before us copy of the communication dated 3rd February 2018. Perusal of the communication shows that the Commissioner of Police took note of the representation submitted by the petitioner and in compliance of the order of This Court, issued necessary directions to the subordinate Officer. The communication states that the subordinate Officer is also directed to take necessary steps expeditiously and submit the compliance report to the Commissioner.

4.

In view of the communication placed on record dated 3rd February 2018, which is marked "X" for identification, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Police acted in compliance of the order of This Court and also issued necessary directions to his subordinate officers. In view of this fact, namely, there is compliance of the order of This Court, nothing remains in the petition, and the petition is disposed of accordingly.

( SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE.

JUDGE.

Madkar