Ranjana Annasaheb Guhe v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary Mr. Eknath Dawale, Rural Dev. And Water Conser.

2024:BHC-NAG:7224-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 315/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2423/2023.

Ranjana Annasaheb Guhe.

-VERSUSState of Maharashtra and others.

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

Shri P.S. Jade, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri N.R. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.

Shri M.G. Rathi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND M.S. JAWALKAR , JJ.

DATE : JULY 08 , 2024.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner alleges contempt of the order of this Court dated 02.05.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 2423/2023, more particularly clauses [i] to [iii] of paragraph no.4, which reads as under :

"(i) The petitioners shall approach the Committee constituted under the Clause 5.10.1 of the Transfer Policy to raise their grievances within a period of seven days from the date of this order.

(ii) The Committee, on the receipt of representation/grievance of the petitioners, if so made within permitted time, shall decide the said representation/ grievance as per the Transfer Policy.

(iii) Meanwhile, the petitioners shall not be relieved from their present posting till their grievance is decided by the Committee."

3.

The petitioner has applied for transfer from difficult area to non-difficult area. Since petitioner's application was not considered, she approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2423/2023, whereby the petitioner was directed to adopt the mechanism for raising the grievance regarding transfer.

4.

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 02.05.2023, the petitioner has approached to the Committee constituted under Clause 5.10.1 of the Transfer Police within the stipulated period i.e. on 09.05.2023. The Committee has received several representations. All representations, including petitioner's representation were decided on 22.05.2023.

5.

It is the first contention of the petitioner that the respondent has neither decided the her representation, nor communicated to her.

However, during the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for respondents made it clear that the decision was taken on 22.05.2023 by the Committee, as well as it was forwarded to the Block Education Officer for further transmission to the concern. Moreover, copy of the e-mail communication in this regard is placed on record. Thus, it is apparent that as per Clause [ii] of the above order of this Court, the respondent has taken a decision.

6.

At this juncture, second ground is raised by the petitioner that the said decision is not as per the transfer policy. To our mind, the same would not come within the purview of contempt, since the direction was restricted to take a decision, which admittedly has been taken. Obviously it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said decision before appropriate forum as permissible under law. As such the order of which contempt is

sought, is complied with. In view of above, the contempt petition deserves no consideration, hence, the same is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE