Asha Dhanesh Tile v. Ganpat More And Others

C.P. No.388/2017 :: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.388 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8121 OF 2013 Kumari Asha Dhanesh Tile ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

Ganpat More & ors.

... RESPONDENTS .......

Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.C. Rudrawar, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 Mr. M.M. Nerlikar, A.G.P. for State .......

CORAM :

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND R.M. JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2023 P.C. :

By order dated 15/12/2014, this Court had directed the Education Officer to decide the proposal of the petitioner on its own merits within a period of four months. The Education Officer having failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.

2.

It is seen that during the pendency of this petition, the proposal came to be rejected vide order dated 26/2/2019. Though the order has been complied with, there is considerable delay in compliance of the order. Pursuant to our order dated 17/2/2023, the then Education Officer Dr. Ganpat Shankarrao

C.P. No.388/2017 :: 2 ::

More has filed his affidavit, wherein he has tendered an unconditional apology for the delay in passing the order. Learned A.G.P., under instructions, also makes a statement that Mr. Ganpat Shankarrao More shall deposit Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) before the High Court Bar Library, Aurangabad as an expression of his remorse in not complying with the order in time. The statement is accepted as an undertaking.

3.

It is seen that, the decision of the Education Officer was forwarded to the management. Learned counsel for the management concedes that the said decision was not communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the management submits that, the said decision will be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks. 4.

Since the decision on the proposal has already been taken, nothing further survives in the petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision taken by the Education Officer, he is at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy. The contempt petition stands disposed in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) fmp/-