Suresh S/O Vitthalpure Dharpure v. Shri Anil S/O Vasantrao Pardhi Director Of Education Nagpur Division Nagpur And Others

1 cp181.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.181/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3648/2000 [D] [Suresh s/o Vitthalpure Dharpure .vs. Shri Anil s/o Vasantrao Pardhi and others] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.D. Thombre, counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.M. Joshi, counsel for respondent no.1, Shri D.M. Kale, counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. ..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JULY 27, 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 7.8.2014 in Writ Petition No.3648/2000. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though this court had, by the judgment dated 7.8.2014, directed the respondents to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 20.9.1998, the approval was not granted.

Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3, has tendered the affidavit-in-reply in the court today. It is stated on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 that during the pendency of the contempt petition, the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur has passed an appropriate order granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 20.9.1998. It is stated that the direction to take appropriate steps was passed against the respondent no.1 and not against the respondent nos.2 and 3. It is stated that since the order now stands complied with, this court may dispose of the contempt petition. It is stated that since approval is granted to the appointment of the petitioner from the year 1998, the

2 cp181.16.odt respondent nos.2 and 3 would take appropriate steps for releasing the amount that is due and payable to the petitioner. Though there is some delay in complying with the order, we do not find that the delay is intentional and, therefore, we dispose of the contempt petition. In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande, PA

3 cp181.16.odt C E R T I F I C A T E "I certify that this order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed order."

Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 28.7.2016