Bombay High CourtCP/89/2017dispossed offdismiss for default

Raju Narayanrao Gaddinkar And Others v. Shri. Vinod Shirbhate, Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati

2017-06-27Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun Digambarrao Upadhye2 pages

CP89-17 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.89/2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3616/2015 (D) (RAJU NARAYANRAO GADDINKAR & OTHERS VERSUS SHRI VINOD SHIRBHATE, L.A.O., AVPC-4, COLLECTOR, AMRAVATI CAMP, AMRAVATI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms D. Sapkal, Advocate h/f Shri A.S. Kilor, counsel for the petitioners. Shri D.P. Thakare, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : JUNE 27 , 2017.

By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek action against the respondent for willful disobedience of the directions in the order, dated 30.03.2016 in Writ Petition No.3616 of 2015.

It is the case of the petitioners that despite the specific directions of this Court to prepare the list of persons eligible to receive compensation within three months, the list was not finalized. It is, however, fairly stated on behalf of the petitioners that after the contempt petition was filed, the respondent has prepared the list and the names of the petitioners are not included in the list. It is stated that the petitioners are not found to be entitled to receive compensation as per the report.

Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, states that the delay in preparation of the report-list was not deliberate or intentional. It is stated by taking this Court through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent that time was utilized in completing the formalities pertaining to the preparation of the report.

CP89-17 In view of the statements recorded hereinabove, it would not be necessary to proceed with the contempt petition any longer. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE