Meera W/O Sachin Adatrao v. Mr Sachin Dnyanoba Adatrao

by NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date:

2025.04.21 20:12:43 +0530 NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.203 OF 2025 Sangita Sunil Chandanshive .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents Mr. R. B. Vijaymane a/w S. R. Vasekar for the Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. G. P a/w Ms. Nisha Mehra, Addl. g. P for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 17th APRIL, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

By an order dated 15th October, 2024, passed in Writ Petition No.1431 of 2024, we had directed the District Social Welfare Officer, Pune Zilla Parishad, to decide the proposal of the Petitioner pending with his Office, within 90 days. 2.

Today the learned Additional Government Pleader places on record a photostat copy of the order dated 13th January, 2025 to indicate that the said authority has obeyed the directions of this Court. The same is taken on record and marked as 'X' for

identification.

3.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that a picture is created by the concerned Officer that the order of this Court has been implemented. He suspects that this order could be ante-dated. He desires to challenge the order since the proposal is rejected. He also prays for costs, contending that the Petitioner had to approach this Court by filing the Contempt Petition since the order was not communicated to the Petitioner. Copy was supplied to the Registrar of the High Court, but not to the Petitioner. 4.

Though, the learned Additional Government Pleader opposes the request of cost on the ground that the contempt is not proved, we do find that the said Authority did not serve a copy of the order 'X', if at all it was passed on 13th January, 2025, until this date. It is because of the laxity on the part of the said Officer Mr. Radhakisan Devdhe, that the Petitioner was required to approach this Court.

5.

In view of the above, the Contempt Petition is disposed off with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which Mr. Radhakisan Devdhe would

deposit in this Court from his salary bank account, within 30 days from today.

6.

Liberty to the Petitioner to withdraw the said amount. 7.

Needless to state, if the Petitioner challenges the order 'X', all contentions, including the contention of whether the order is ante- dated, are kept open.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)