Bombay High CourtCP/39/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Jaybhawani Shikshan Prasark Mandal Thr Secretary, Buldhana And Another v. Dilip Deshpande, Chief Secretary, School Education And Sports, Youth Welfare, Mumbai

2016-05-05Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

CP39-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.P. NO.39/2016 IN C.A.W. NO.1263/2015 IN W.P.NO. 2595/2014 (D) (JAYBHAWANI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL VERSUS DILIP DESHPANDE, UNDER SECRETARY) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms Deepali Sapkal h/f Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Joshi, A.G.P. for the respondent.

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

DATE : MAY 5 , 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 17.07.2015.

It is the case of the petitioner that though this Court had directed the respondent to take suitable decision on the appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months from 17.07.2015, the decision is not rendered by the respondent.

Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, states on instructions and on the basis of the order passed in the appeal that the appeal of the petitioner has been decided on 04.05.2016. It is stated that the appeal of the petitioner is dismissed by the order dated 04.05.2016 and the said order is being communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that the hearing in the matter was conducted on 17.03.2016 and, hence, there is some delay in deciding the appeal. It is stated that the respondent would ensure deciding the matters as per the time frame, in future.

CP39-16 In view of the aforesaid, it would not be proper to proceed with the contempt petition, any longer. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE