← Library
Bombay High CourtCP/12/2021disposed of

Parineeta Paresh Naik v. Santosh R. Bhat And ANR

2022-02-08Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha3 pages

Suchitra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12/2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28/2021 PARINEETA PARESH NAIK ...PETITIONER

Versus

SANTOSH R. BHAT AND ANR.

...RESPONDENTS Ms. Renika De Souza, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. T. Sequeira, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM:

M. S. SONAK & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED:

P.C.:

1.

Heard Ms. Renika De Souza for the petitioner and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Mr. T. Sequeira for the Respondent No.1.

2.

In this petition, the petitioner alleges disobedience of our order dated 16.03.2021 in Writ Petition No.28/2021. The

respondent no.1 who is alleged to have disobeyed our order has filed affidavits dated 10.12.2021 and 28.01.2022. 3.

Neither of the affidavits inspire much confidence particularly when viewed in the context of photographs and CD placed on record by the petitioner. We do get an impression that the respondent no.1 has attempted to overreach our orders. 4.

However, be that as it may, the respondent no.1 in paragraphs 13 and 14 of his affidavit dated 10.12.2021 has tendered an apology and further has stated that he has discontinued the limited activity that he was carrying out. 5.

Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.1 has submitted that the respondent no.1 has now obtained alternate premises for undertaking his catering activities. Mr. Lotlikar also submitted that the respondent no.1 is pursuing the matter with the Goa State Pollution Control Board for obtaining consent. Mr. Lotlikar, on instructions states that no activity of catering including, the limited activity which the respondent no.1 was carrying out will now be undertaken through the suit premises.

6.

Having regard to the statements in the affidavits and the assurances now given on behalf of respondent no.1, we do not think that we should continue with these proceedings any further. Accordingly, these contempt proceedings are disposed of. R. N. LADDHA, J.

M. S. SONAK, J.