Bombay High CourtCP/326/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Hanuman S/O. Laxman Shrirame v. Smt. Babita Giri Chairaman And Others

2017-04-13Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

1304cp326.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.326/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4251/2015 (D) Hanuman s/o Laxman Shrirame ...Versus...

Smt. Babita Giri, Chairman, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli 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 P.P. Dhok, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3 - State CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 13.04.2017 By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the directions in the order, dated 24.8.2015, directing the respondents to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though a long time has lapsed, the caste claim of the petitioner is still not decided. It is stated that the petitioner is not being appointed on the post on which he is selected as the caste claim of the petitioner is not verified.

Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State states on instructions that in all other

1304cp326.16.odt matters where the caste claim is not decided as per the time frame, this Court has granted a year's time to decide the caste claim. It is stated that for a long time there was no Coram of the Scrutiny Committee and due to the lack of the Police Officers, the vigilance enquiry also could not be conducted. It is submitted that normally in this matter also time of one year would be required. It is, however, stated that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, since the petitioner's appointment is not made due to nonverification of his caste claim, the Scrutiny Committee would decide the caste claim of the petitioner within six months. On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - State, we find that the delay in deciding the caste claim of the petitioner is not deliberate or intentional.

Hence, the contempt petition cannot be proceeded against the respondents any longer. By accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the caste claim would be positively decided within six months from now, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar