Shrikishan Ranglal Agroya v. G Shrikant And Another

C.P. No.102/2018 (( 1 ))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.102 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10152 OF 2016 Shrikishan s/o Ranglal Agroya ...

PETITIONER

VERSUS

Mr. G. Shrikanth & anr.

...

RESPONDENTS .....

Ms P.V. Bodke Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mrs. G.L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for State .....

CORAM:

PRASANNA B. VARALE AND R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATED :

18th JULY, 2019.

ORAL ORDER :

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. While issuing notice, the Division Bench of this Court on 9/2/2019, was pleased to observe that, depending upon the reply which would be received from the respondent, this Court will pass appropriate orders as to whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondents or otherwise. 2.

In response to the notice, affidavits-in-reply are filed on behalf of the respondents i.e. Mr. G. Shreekanth, Collector, Latur as well as Shri A.D. Hange, Commissioner, Latur City Municipal Corporation. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Mr. G. Shreekanth that, he was having an additional charge of the

C.P. No.102/2018 (( 2 )) Municipal Commissioner of Latur during the period 16/5/2017 to 30/10/2017 and in view of the order passed by this Court, an exercise of hearing of parties was undertaken by him. It is stated that the parties have submitted documents before him and also the submissions were advanced. It is then stated that, on availability of regular Municipal Commissioner, his additional charge of Municipal Commissioner was handed over to regular Municipal Commissioner. 3.

In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Mr. A.D. Hange, it is stated that, in the matter the Commissioner passed the order on 7/7/2018. Copy of the roznama is placed on record along with copy of the order. Though there is some delay, the delay is explained by the sequence of events, which are in the nature of the administrative actions.

4.

Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner is now decided, and the order of this Court is complied with, and needless to observe that the petitioner, if he is having any grievance against the order passed by the authority, may avail the remedy of challenging the decision before the competent forum, the petition is disposed of.

(R.G. AVACHAT) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE fmp/-