← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/62/2014disposedoff

Shri Shyamkishore S/O Ramnarayan Jaiswal And Another v. Shri. Ganeshji S/O Ramchandra Naik

2018-04-19Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

CP62-14 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 62/2014 IN W.P. NO. 5897/2013 (D) (SHYAMKISHORE RAMNARAYAN JAISWAL & ANOTHER VERSUS GANESH RAMCHANDRA NAIK, MINISTER OF STATE EXCISE & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None for the petitioners.

Mrs. Shamsi Haidar, A.G.P. and Shri S.S. Joshi, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 19 , 2018.

By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions in the order dated 29.10.2013.

It is the case of the petitioners that though this Court had directed the respondent no.1-the Hon'ble Minister for State Excise to decide the appeal filed by the petitioners within six weeks after hearing the petitioners, the respondents had not decided the same.

Ms Haidar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, states that the appeal of the petitioners was decided on 17.06.2016 and certain favourable order appear to have been passed in favour of the petitioners. In view of the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it would not be necessary to proceed with the contempt petition any further. We accept the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the delay in deciding the appeal was not deliberate and intentional. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents, they have other remedies but that cannot be a matter to pursue the contempt petition any further.

CP62-14 In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE