Rahul Subhash Kshirsagar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:30090-DB 3-cp-1060-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 3 CONT. PETITION NO.1060 OF 2024 IN WP/11096/2022 RAHUL SUBHASH KSHIRSAGAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent/State.

...

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 16 DECEMBER 2024 ORDER :

.

Learned AGP is tendering affidavit of respondent No.2 stating that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.11096 of 2022 by this Court on 12.04.2024, the order has been passed by her on 13.12.2024. In the affidavit respondent No.2 is tendering apology thereby accepting that she has not passed the said order immediately. The reason that has been tried to be given is that due to administrative and procedural aspect, she has not passed that order. Important point to be noted is that in the said order, this Court had not even given the time limit. That means, it was to be complied with immediately. We can [1]

3-cp-1060-2024.odt understand as regards the procedural aspect, but along with the affidavit, there is no evidence to show what procedure was adopted by her before passing the order on 13.12.2024. We deprecate such kind of practices. When certain acts are directed to be done, then they should be within the stipulated period or reasonable period, as the case may be.

2.

Anyway, now the order is passed and learned AGP assures that as the order is passed, the consequential benefits would be released. We take the said statement as undertaking and expect respondent No.2 to act upon it as early as possible. Now, case is not made out that we should take action as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act.

3.

Contempt Petition stands disposed of.

[ ROHIT W. JOSHI ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE scm [2]