Gopal S/O Sheshrao Wankhade v. Kishore Ruprao Ingole, In-Charge Head Master, Daduji Pethe Vidyalaya, Antora And Others
0308cp235.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.235/2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2589/2013 (D) Gopal s/o Sheshrao Wankhade ...Versus...
Shri Kishore Ruprao Ingole 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.H. Gulhane, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.J. Kadu, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mrs. M.N. Hiwase, AGP for respondent no.4 CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 03.08.2015 Heard Shri P.H. Gulhane, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.J. Kadu, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mrs. M.N. Hiwase, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.4.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as they are wilfully disobeying the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2589/2013 on 28.2.2014. The above referred writ petition came to be disposed by this Court on the compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent - Management. The relevant clause (ii) (c) of the compromise as reproduced in the order passed by this Court shows that the petitioner and the respondent
0308cp235.14.odt - Management agreed that the respondent - Management would not be liable to pay any salary/back wages etc. to the petitioner unless grants are sanctioned by the Education Officer. The respondent - Management has taken all other steps which were required to be taken by it regarding the forwarding of the bills to the office of the Education Officer. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has not been able to point out that the Education Officer was either signatory to the compromise or there is any wilful disobedience of any directions given by this Court which makes him liable for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner has not placed any material on the record to demonstrate breach of any directions which necessitates the exercise of jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The show-cause-notice issued on 24.11.2014 is dropped. The contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy according to law for redressal of his grievance.
JUDGE Wadkar