Farzana Begum Ibrahim Saheb v. Ehsan Ulla Quadri

*1* kps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT. PETITION NO. 419 OF 2014 IN CP/141/2013 FARZANA BEGUM IBRAHIM SAHEB

VERSUS

EHSAN ULLA QUADRI ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jadhavar Santosh S. and Mr.Mohit Deshmukh. Advocate for Respondents : Mrs.Ansari A.N.

...

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATE :- 14th August, 2015 Per Court:

On 11.08.2015, the Respondent/ Contemner remained personally present in this Court, filed an affidavit and has tendered an unconditional apology. Considering the same, this Court has passed the order on 11.08.2015 which reads as under:- "1 Mrs.Ansari, learned Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1/ Contemner, submits that the bailable warrant, as was issued by this Court on 20.07.2015, has been served upon Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.1/ Contemner is personally present in the Court and is identified by Mrs.Ansari.

Mrs.Ansari further submits, on instructions, that the P.R. Bond has been executed by Respondent No.1 with the Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur and an unconditional apology has been tendered in

*2* paragraph 2 of the affidavit, which Respondent No.1 is tendering across the Bar.

The said affidavit is taken on record. Considering the statement of Mrs.Ansari, the appearance of Respondent No.1/ Contemner is noted.

Shri Shirsath, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that he would go through the affidavit submitted by Respondent No.1/ Contemner and would make a statement on 14.08.2015. If the Petitioner is satisfied with the reply submitted, the Petitioner would accordingly, make a statement.

Stand over to 14.08.2015. The matter to appear in the Supplementary Board for passing orders. Respondent No.1/ Contemner need not remain present on the next date."

Shri Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, draws my attention to paragraph (c) in the order passed by this Court dated 05.03.2012 in Writ Petition No.9921/2010. He indicates that this Court had disentitled the Petitioner from claiming/ receiving the back-wages upto 21.04.2010 which is the date of the judgment of the School Tribunal in Appeal No.214/2006.

Mrs.Ansari, learned Advocate for the Respondent, points out that there is a typographical error in clause (c) of the order passed by this Court dated 05.03.2012. This Court intended to disentitle the Petitioner from claiming full back-wages upto the date of the judgment of the School Tribunal. She, therefore, indicates that the judgment of the School

*3* Tribunal in Appeal No.214/2006 is dated 21.08.2010 which has been erroneously typed as 21.04.2010. It, therefore, needs to be read as 21.08.2010.

Considering the above, Shri Jadhavar fairly states that the judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2012 passed in the Writ Petition as well as the order dated 30.04.2014 passed in Contempt Petition No.141/2013 (already disposed of), have been complied with. Mrs.Ansari adds that pay fixation of the Petitioner has also been done and there is no dispute with regards to the same. Shri Jadhavar confirms the said statement.

In the light of the above, the apology tendered by the Respondent in his affidavit is accepted. The orders of this Court as stated above have been complied with. This Contempt Petition, therefore, need not be kept pending. It is, therefore, disposed of and the proceedings of contempt against the Respondents are purged.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)