Bombay High CourtCP/101/2014dispossed offdismiss for default

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha, Hinghanghat Through Its Secretary, And Another v. Shri J.S. Saharia, Chief Secretary And Chairman Of The High Power Committee Mumbai And 1

2016-01-20Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar2 pages

2001cp101.14.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.101/2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4440/2013 (D) Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha and another ...Versus...

Shri J.S. Saharia, Chief Secretary and Chairman of the High Power Committee, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 (Dismissed) Smt. Ashwani Bhide, Secretary, Department of Education, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.M. Ahirrao, Advocate for petitioners Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent - State CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 20.01.2016 By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek action against the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.1.2014 in Writ Petition No.4440/2013.

According to the petitioners, the respondent had not decided the representation of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks as directed by the order dated 28.1.2014. Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent states on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent that the State Government has decided the representation of the petitioner by

2001cp101.14.odt an order dated 31.7.2014. It is stated that though there is some delay in deciding the representation, the same is not intentional. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that no action could be initiated against the respondent for wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.1.2014. Though there is some delay in deciding the representation, the representation stands decided by the order dated 31.7.2014. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of rejection of the representation, the petitioners may avail appropriate remedy.

In the circumstances of the case, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar