← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/324/2013disposed offdismissed for default

Vipul Vilasrao Sarnaik v. J.S.Sahariya And Another

2017-04-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala4 pages

1 Cont.Petn 144,204,322,324,408/13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 144 OF 2013 in Writ Petition No. 10011 of 2012 Minakshi d/o Shrirang Shingade & Ors.

Petitioners V E R S U S J.S. Sahariya, Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Ors.

Respondents Mr. H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P.N. Katti, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 204 OF 2013 in Writ Petition No. 7774 of 2012 Monali D/o Sayasrao Gholve Petitioner V E R S U S J.S. Sahariya, Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Anr.

Respondents Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.N. Katti, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2

2 Cont.Petn 144,204,322,324,408/13 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 324 OF 2013 in Writ Petition No. 10442 of 2012 Shaikh Azhar Rahim & Ors.

Petitioners V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Anr.

Respondents Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.N. Katti, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 408 OF 2013 in Writ Petition No. 10078 of 2012 Shaikh Salim Ismail Petitioner V E R S U S A.S. Sahariya, Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai & Ors.

Respondents Mr. G.V. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.N. Katti, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 19th APRIL, 2017

3 Cont.Petn 144,204,322,324,408/13 PER COURT :

Heard.

2.

Mr. Nikam, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the order of this Court is complied with by issuing orders thereby appointing the petitioners.

3.

Considering the above, the contempt stands purged. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed, they are at liberty to assail the same as permissible in law.

3.

In view of above, Contempt Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) SRM/19/4/17

4 Cont.Petn 144,204,322,324,408/13