Bombay High CourtCP/193/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

Dindayal Laxmansingh Chavan v. Omprakash Bhimrao Gudhe

2015-10-15Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.I.S. Cheema2 pages

1 cp193.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.193 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.568 OF 1997 [D] [Dindayal Laxmansingh Chauhan .vs. Omprakash Bhimrao Gudhe] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 petitioner, Shri N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for the respondent.

..........

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2015.

None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 30.9.2015. None appears for the petitioner today also. We have perused the contempt petition and the order of which the contempt is alleged.

It appears that by the order of which the contempt is alleged, we had permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the Education Officer, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order i.e. 7.5.2012 and the Education Officer was directed to decide the representation within eight weeks.

Shri Khubalkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, has referred to the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of the respondent. It is stated in the affidavit-inreply that certain documents were necessary for deciding the representation made by the petitioner. It is stated that after verifying the record of the school and the Government Circular and the Provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions and Service) Rules, 1981 the representation of the petitioner was decided on 23.6.2015. It is stated that some time was required for deciding the representation in view of the aforesaid

2 cp193.15.odt position.

On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, we find that it would not be proper to continue with the contempt proceedings no longer. We do not find that the respondent had deliberately not decided the representation within the stipulated time. Hence, we dispose of the contempt petition, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Gulande