Tanay Namdeo Kokkar v. The Assistant Commissioner Social Welfare Dept Latur And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.800 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5129 OF 2019 Tanay S/o Namdeo Kokkar ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Latur & Ors.

..RESPONDENTS Mr A. C. Darandale, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 11th December, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

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

On a grievance that the order of this Court is not complied with, the present contempt petition is filed. On 3rd December, 2019, simple notice was issued to respondent No.2 i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Latur. It seems that a communication was forwarded to respondent No.2 from the office of the Government Pleader seeking response and Mr Dande, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, on receiving the response in the nature of availability of the copy of the order dated 30th/31st August, 2019, submitted before this Court

(2) that the order dated 19th August, 2019, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5129 of 2019 is duly complied with within a stipulated period, as directed by this Court.

3.

Perusal of the copy of the order made available to this Court further shows that the order is communicated not only to the petitioner but to his father and also to the Principal of the College, wherein the petitioner was prosecuting his studies.

4.

The above referred sequence of events only shows that the present contempt petition is filed in most hurried and casual manner and the petitioner even failed to provide all the necessary instructions to his own Counsel and as such, this hurried and casual approach of the petitioner led to file an unworthy and unmeritorious contempt petition in this Court. Though such an act causes a prejudice to the respondents, who are added in the contempt petition and are to face the initiation of proceedings in this Court, only by recording our displeasure considering fact that the petitioner is student, we dispose of the contempt petition.

5.

The notice issued to respondent No.2 is recalled. We expect that the petitioner in the present matter, in particular and petitioners in

(3) general, ought to act more carefully while filing the contempt petition in this Court considering the serious implications of the proceedings. (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) sjk