Adiwasi Matsya Vyavasay Sahakari Sanstha Ltd Through Its Chairman Rajendra Shivlal Sonwane v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 cp 564.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5544 OF 2016 ADIWASI MATSYA VYAVASAY SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Golegaonkar Madhur A. and Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar AGP for Respondents : Mrs. M. A. Deshpande ...

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATE:

th JUNE, 2019 PER COURT:

1.

We have heard Mr. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Deshpande, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

2.

The affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent no. 4 to the effect that respondent no. 4 issued letter dated 21.03.2017 requesting the petitioner / society to submit the documents

2 cp 564.17 along with fees, however the petitioner / society neither its members turned up to the office of respondent no. 4 and thereafter the policy has undergone change. As per Government Resolution dated 30.06.2017 the fresh tenders have been floated and the tank is also allotted to the successful bidder.

3.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, had on number of occasions approached the respondent along with the documents and fees, however the same was not accepted. The representations are also given from time to time. The respondents did not abide by the order passed by this Court thereby making themselves liable for contempt.

4.

There is nothing on record to show that pursuant to the letter dated 21.03.2017 issued by respondent no. 4 calling upon the petitioner to submit the documents along with the fees. The petitioner had shown its willingness and

3 cp 564.17 approached the office only on 06.07.2017. By that time a new policy has also come into effect and the steps were taken in pursuance to the new policy and pursuance to the new policy the tenders were floated and the tank is allotted.

5.

Considering the above, we do not find any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the respondents.

6.

In the light of above, contempt petition stands disposed of. No costs.

[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe