← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/561/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Dattu Chandrbhan Waghmare And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-01-25Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K.L. Wadane3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 561 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11729 OF 2015 Dattu Chandrabhan Waghmare and others

...Petitioners

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others

...Respondents

.....

Shri S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner Shri R.B.Bagul, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 Shri R.D.Raut, advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3 .....

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & K.L.WADANE, JJ.

DATED : 25 th JANUARY, 2017 O R D E R :

Mr. Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court under order dated 1.3.2016 had directed the respondent no.3 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner within four months. On 30.7.2016 after lapse of four months the order is passed that the petitioner is not entitled to the said

grant. The same is without issuing notice to the petitioner, nor considering the earlier panchanama made by the authorities themselves who have in the said panchanama opined about the existence of the cattle shed. According to the learned counsel, deliberately the authorities have passed such an order behind the back of the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Raut, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submits that the order has been passed considering all the relevant aspects of the matter by the authorities.

3.

This Court had directed the respondent no.3 to pass orders on the representation/application filed by the petitioner within four months. It appears that the order has been passed after about five months. This Court in contempt jurisdiction cannot consider the legality of the order passed. The order of this Court stands complied with though belatedly by one month. It does not appear that the said delay is

deliberate or willful.

4.

Considering the above, the contempt stands purged. As such Contempt Petition is disposed of. No costs.

5.

Needless to state, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed, the petitioner can assail the said order in appropriate proceedings. In that regard, all contentions of the respective parties are kept open.

(K.L.WADANE, J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) dbm/cp561.16