Bombay High CourtCP/28/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Ambika Bahu Uddeshiya Gram Vikas Sanstha Thr. Its Secretary v. State Of Mah., Thr. Its Principal Sec. And Comm. Public Health And Family Welfare (Sujata Saunik)

2016-03-22Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

1 cp28.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.28 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4860 OF 2012 [D] [Ambika Bahu-Uddeshiya Gram Vikas Sanstha, Chandrapur .vs. State of Maharashtra and one] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.J. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondents. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : MARCH 22, 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner has sought action against the respondents for flouting the directions of this court, vide order dated 17.9.2014 in Writ Petition No.4860/2012. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though this court had allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and had directed the respondents to award the contract under Community Based Monitoring Project to the petitionerassociation, the respondents had not awarded the contract to the petitioner for a long time. It is stated that after the contempt petition was filed, the respondents have granted the contract for a period of only 20 days to the petitioner, as the contract expired on 31.3.2015.

On a reading of the order of which the contempt is alleged and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, we do not find that the respondents have deliberately flouted the order of which the contempt is alleged. This court had directed the respondents to award the contract to

2 cp28.15.odt the petitioner-society and no specific time was stipulated. In this background, it cannot be said that the respondents had deliberated and intentionally refused to award the contract in favour of the petitioner immediately, after the judgment was passed. Also, we find that, in that subsequent year also, the contract was awarded to the petitioner as per its eligibility. Hence, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande