← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/786/2016disposed offdismissed for default

Adarash Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Through Its Principal Ajit Avinashrao Maslekar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2017-04-17Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sangitrao S. Patil,Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala4 pages

1 C.P.No.786/16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.786 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.9607 OF 2015 Adarsh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's K.T.Patil College of Computer Science ... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and others.

... Respondents.

...

Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate holding for Mr.V.S.Undre, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for the State.

Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for Respondent No.4.

...

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND SANGITRAO S. PATIL,JJ.

Date : 17.04.2017.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

We had issued notice to the University

2 C.P.No.786/16 only for seeking clarification.

3.

Considering the order passed in strict sense the same may not tantamount to contempt. 4.

However, considering the nature of the dispute it appears that there there is communication gap between the petitioner and the authority. The grounds on which the earlier communication was made to the petitioner on 4.9.2015, rejecting the proposal, the same grounds are reiterated in the communication dated 6.10.2016. According to the petitioner, those deficiencies were removed. This Court while setting aside the earlier communication dated 4.9.2015, had observed that the petitioner has removed lthe deficiencies as University has recommended the proposal. Under the communication dated 6.10.2016, it is stated that the petitioner has not filed documents to substantiate that the deficiencies and of clauses 6,7, 12(a), 12(2) (2.1), 12(2)(2.3) and 13. The petitioner may file documents to substantiate that the compliance of all the clauses referred to in the

3 C.P.No.786/16 order dated 6.10.2016. The same be done within two (2) weeks from today. On receipt of the same, the Respondent authority shall decide the said proposal afresh preferably by 15.6.2017. While doing so, the impugned communication would not be an impediment.

5.

The Contempt Petition accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(SANGITRAO S. PATIL,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Cp786.16

4 C.P.No.786/16