Bombay High CourtCP/215/2017dispossed offdismiss for default

Zanklal S/O Surajlal Lilhare v. Atul J. Gudadhe, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ratnara, Gondia

2018-01-15Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arun Digambarrao Upadhye2 pages

CP215-17 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.215/2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4314/2017 (D) (ZANAKLAL SARJULAL LILHARE VERSUS ATUL J. GUDADHE, SECRETARY, GP RATNARA, GONDIA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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 A.N. Vastani, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND A.D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 15 , 2018.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against respondent for willful disobedience of the direction in the order dated 07.07.2017.

According to the petitioner, though this Court had, by the order dated 07.07.2017, directed the respondent to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner within two weeks, the respondent had not taken any decision on the representation.

The learned counsel for the respondent states that though there is some delay on the part of the respondent in deciding the representation, the same is not deliberate or intentional. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner was decided on 12.08.2017. It is stated that since the delay is not deliberate and intentional, the contempt action may not be initiated against the respondent.

Since the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent on 12.08.2017, it would be necessary to dispose of the contempt petition as the delay in deciding the representation

CP215-17 does not appear to be deliberate or intentional. Hence, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE