Bombay High CourtCP/384/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Ku. Jayashree D/O. Pundalik Thigale v. Rajgopal Devara, State Of Maha., Through Its Principal Secretary, Tribal Devp. Dept.,Mantralaya Ext

2017-01-16Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

CP384-16 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.384/2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5135/2015 (D) ( JAYASHREE PUNDALIK THIGALE VERSUS RAJGOPAL DEVARA, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUMBAI & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Ashwin Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Ms T.H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for the respondents.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 16 , 2017.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions in the judgment, dated 14.12.2015 in Writ Petition No.5135 of 2015.

According to the petitioner, though this Court had directed the respondents to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within ten months, the respondents have not decided the same.

Ms Udeshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, states that there is some delay in deciding the caste claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the caste claim is decided on 12.01.2017. It is further stated that the delay occurred as the first vigilance enquiry was not conducted properly and it was necessary to conduct a second vigilance enquiry in the caste claim of the petitioner. It is stated that since the delay in deciding the matter was not deliberate, the contempt petition may be disposed of.

CP384-16 From the statements made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, we do not find that there is any necessity to continue with the contempt petition any longer. Since the caste claim of the petitioner is decided and the delay is not intentional, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE