Arvind Krushnarao Waghmare v. Smt Manjusha S. Deshpande, Member-Secy., Gender Sensitization Internal Compliant Committee And ORS.

1 cp174.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1758 OF 2024 (D) ( Arvind s/o Krushnarao Waghmare ..vs.. Smt. Manjusha S. Deshpande, Member Secretary, Gender Sensitization Internal Complaint Committee & Presiding Member, Internal Sub-Committee, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.K. Waghmare-the petitioner in person.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI , J J .

DATED : 09-07-2024 Under the provisions of the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the High Court Bombay (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2014, the petitioner is facing an enquiry. 2.

This Court while deciding the Writ Petition No.1758/2024, preferred by the petitioner made following observations:

"Needless to clarify that withdrawal of the petition shall not have any adverse impact on the right of the petitioner to establish his defence before the Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the High Court of Bombay (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2014."

2 cp174.24 3.

After the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner has moved applications which are produced at Annexure-C, Annexure-D, Annexure-E and Annexure-F with various prayers. All these applications which were numbered as Exhibits 96 to 99 were decided vide orders dated 12-4-2024.

4.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders as he is claiming that his right of defence in the aforesaid proceedings is affected.

5.

We are not commenting on the merits of these orders as the petitioner has his own remedy in the matter of questioning these orders in independent proceedings or may take recourse of such remedy as is permissible and available in law.

6.

We are primarily concerned with the present proceedings as to whether the orders passed on Exhibits 96 to 99 by the respondent-Committee can be termed as contemptuous in violation of the order of this Court dated 15-3-2024 delivered in Writ Petition No.1758/2024.

7.

This Court while dealing with the said writ petition has observed that the withdrawal of the petition by the petitioner who is the non-applicant in the enquiry proceedings shall have a right of defence and his defence shall not be prejudice by withdrawal of the petition.

3 cp174.24 8.

The respondent-Committee vide orders referred above has rejected the prayers of the petitioner moved in various applications mentioned therein by recording specific reasons. The reasons may not be appealing to the petitioner. However, we hardly see any observation in the orders which can be termed as in contempt of our order dated 15-3-2024 delivered in Writ Petition No.1758/2024.

9.

As this Court is not justified with the submissions made by the petitioner in person that the act of the respondent is contemptuous, we are not inclined to invoke the contempt jurisdiction as has been prayed by the petitioner.

10.

The contempt petition accordingly stands dismissed.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) adgokar