Majid Khan Yusuf Khan v. The Chairman And Managing Director Sanjeev Kumar Msedcl Mumbai And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.781 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2134 OF 2019 Shri. Majid Khan Yusuf Khan, Age: 60 years, Occu: Retired, R/o. HUDCO Colony, Dr. Zakir Hussain Society, Chalisgaon, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The Chairman and Managing Director Shri. Sanjeev Kumar, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Plot No.G-9, "Prakashgad", 4th Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 2.

The Chief General Manager (Technical Establishment), Shri. Bharat Jadkar, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Plot No.G-9 "Prakashgad", 4th Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 3.

The Executive Director and competent Authority Shri. Sanjay Taksande, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Building No.2, Plot No.1 & 2, Officers Colony, Ganesh Khind Road, Pune - 411016 4.

The Chief Engineer (HR-LZ), Shri. Dipak Kumtekar, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Jalgaon Zone, Vidyut Bhawan, 1st Floor, OPH Premises, Sale Galli, Jalgaon - 413512

(2) 5.

The Executive Engineer, Shri. Sandip Shendage, The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Chalisgaon Division, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Mr Pramod D. Patil, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATE : 12th March, 2020 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2.

In response to our notice dated 26th November, 2019, Mr Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 placed on record a communication dated 17th February, 2020. He submits that as the petition was circulated before this Court without intimating him, he was unable to file a short affidavit along with the communication. 3.

Mr Bajaj, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 then submits that the order of this Court is duly complied with and there is some delay in compliance of the same. He further submits that the delay caused in compliance of the order of this Court is due to procedural and administrative difficulties, such as, the matter was routed through the

(3) various authorities and reached the higher authorities and the authorities thought it fit to consider all the aspects before passing the order so as to avoid any error. He then submits that the authority tendered an unconditional apology for the delay. 4.

A copy of communication dated 17th February, 2020 is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Perusal of this order/communication shows that the representation is positively considered and the subordinate authorities are directed to disburse the amount to the petitioner to which he is entitled to. 5.

In view of above, by accepting the unconditional apology tendered before this Court and considering the fact that the order of this Court is duly complied with and the purpose of approaching this Court is now duly served, the present contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.

(R. G. AVACHAT, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk