Bombay High CourtCP/353/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Mungasaji Mauli Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Yavatmal, Thr. Secretary Sudesh M. Rathod v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Department Of Women And Chile Development, Mumbai And Others

2016-12-05Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

0512cp353.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.353/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.651/2016 (D) Mungsaji Mauli Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, through its Secretary, Yavatmal ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai 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 Sagar Katkar, Adv. h/f Shri N.R. Saboo, Adv. for petitioner Shri Sanjeev Deshpande, Addl. G.P. for respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : 05.12.2016 By this contempt petition, the petitioner has sought action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the directions in the order, dated 2.5.2016 in a bunch of writ petitions.

It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that though the respondents were directed to release the grant-in-aid till 2015, within a period of ten weeks from 2.5.2016, the grant is not paid till date.

Shri Deshpande, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents states that an application

0512cp353.16.odt for extension of time to release the grants in favour of the petitioner was made by the respondents and time to make the payment is extended till 31.03.2017.

In view of the subsequent development, the contempt petition is liable to be disposed of.

Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of as such, with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar