Shri Balaji Maharaj Sansthan, Deulgoanraja, Buldhana Thr. Its Manager, K.D. Bidkar And ORS. v. Subodh E Bhandarkar, Joint Director Of Higher Education, Amravati And ANR.

2024:BHC-NAG:12628-DB 1 43-cp 300.2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2023 AND CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2024 AND IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2021 ( Shri Balaji Maharaj Sansthan and others vs. Dr. Subodh E.Bhandarkar, Joint Director of Higher Education Amravati and another ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of direction, Court's or Judge's order and the Registrar's orders.

Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE & ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. ATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2024 1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2) By this contempt petition, the petitioners in both petitions are seeking directions against the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 28/09/2022 in Writ Petition No.3005/2021, which reads thus :- "I) The respondent nos.3 and 4 Management shall pay the petitioner subsistence allowance in accordance with the prevailing statutes.

II) After making such payment to the petitioner, respondents nos.3 and 4 Management are free to submit the pay-bills to respondent no.1. They can thereafter seek reimbursement from the Government authorities in accordance with the law.

III) Within a period of ten days from today, the petitioner shall furnish the requisite undertaking as stated above to respondent nos.3 and 4 Management.

IV) The parties shall bear their own costs."

2 43-cp 300.2024.odt 3) On perusal of the same, it appears that the petitioners were only granted liberty to reimburse the amount from the government authorities by the said order. This does not mean that government authorities were directed to comply with the same. Therefore, in our view, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction seeking directions against the respondents to comply. Thus, we do not find substance in the contention of the petitioners in that regard. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedies available in law.

4) In view of the above, petitions stands dismissed. No costs. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) KOLHE