← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/378/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Shri Bhagwat S/O Dayaram Tayade v. Shri. Vijay Zade, Collector Buldhana And Another

2016-12-16Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Swapna Joshi2 pages

CP378-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.378/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6184/2016 (P) (BHAGWAT DAYARAM TAYADE VERSUS VIJAY ZADE, COLLECTOR, BULDANA & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.D. Karode, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for the R-1.

Shri S.M. Vaishnav, counsel for the R-2.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATE : DECEMBER 16 , 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order, dated 21.10.2016 in Writ Petition No.6184 of 2016. It is stated that though this Court had, by the order dated 21.10.2016, directed the respondents to continue the petitioner on the post of Member of the Gram Panchayat, the respondents did not permit the petitioner to act as a Sarpanch.

Shri Vaishnav, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, states that the petitioner is permitted to act as a Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and a communication informing about the said position is served by the respondent no.2 on the Collector, Buldana. It is stated that the order is duly complied with.

On hearing the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and on a perusal of the communication, dated 09.12.2016 of which a reference is made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, it appears that the petitioner is permitted to work as a Sarpanch.

CP378-16 In the circumstances of the case, the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE