Dismissed

Charles Wilson v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Feb 2007WP/2014/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed as a suo motu matter arising from a complaint about the clearance of a sitting Judge's bill, was initially treated as a contempt proceeding. After the respondent tendered an unconditional apology, a joint affidavit was filed clarifying instructions for bill clearance, and an admonition was previously discharged, the Court found no basis to keep the matter pending and fina

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and its accompanying contempt proceedings were finally disposed of.

Charles Wilson Vs State of Maharashtra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2000

¶5

Charles Wilson

¶6

.. Petitioner.

¶7

vs.
State of Maharashtra

¶8

& Ors... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. K.R. Belosey, Officiating G.P. for State.

¶10

Coram: J.N. PATEL &,

¶11

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.

¶12

Date: 5th February, 2007.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

.Heard.

¶15

2.Mr. K.R. Belosey, the learned Government
Pleader, has placed on record copy of the G.R. dated
21.12.2006 which complies the order dated 10.11.2006
passed by this Court in the matter.

¶16

3.We find that keeping this matter pending has no
meaning and, therefore, we are finally disposing it of.

¶17

¶18

4.This petition pertains to a complaint made by a
clerk of this Court in the matter of clearance of bill
of a sitting Judge of this Court which was treated as
suo motu writ petition. On being served with the
notice, initially the respondent wanted to contest the
matter, but, subsequently it was withdrawn and
unconditional apology was tendered. Not only this, the
then Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary
(Finance), State of Maharashtra filed a joint affidavit
before this Court. In view of this, this Court decided
to drop the contempt proceedings but the petition could
not be disposed of and it appears that on 10.11.2006
this Court issued certain directions regarding payment
of reimbursement of medical bills. Though it was
besides the subject matter of the petition but we
appreciate the response of the State in the matter.
This sufficiently indicates that the impression this
Court formed on the complaint made by Mr. Charles
Wilson was probably due to some misunderstanding.
Therefore, this Court has by its order dated 13.10.2000
already discharged the notice by recording admonition.

¶19

5.Not only that but the affidavit filed by the
then Chief Secretary and the Secretary (Finance)
clearly mentions in para 4 that necessary instructions
have been given to the following effect for smooth and
quick passing of the bills received from the Hon’ble
Judges i.e. :-

¶20

¶21

" a) Bills received from the Hon’ble Judges of
the High Court will be cleared as soon as
possible and preferably within a week.

¶22

b) If there is any doubt or query in relation
to such bills, they will not be rejected but
brought to the notice of a special designated
Nodal Officer or a designated Officer of the
High Court for necessary correction and
rectification whereafter the bill would be
passed forthwith."

¶23

6.The learned Government Pleader submits that as
it is an affidavit filed on behalf of the State by the
Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Finance), the
State would conform to the instructions. We accept
this as an undertaking given by the State to the Court
in the matter of passing of the bills received from the
Hon’ble Judges of this Court.

¶24

7.We expect the State to treat the Hon’ble Judges
of this Court who are constitutional functionaries with
grace and dignity which they deserve. With these
observations we finally dispose of the petition.

¶25

8.The learned Government Pleader to communicate
this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra.

¶26

¶27

(J.N. Patel, J. )

¶28

(S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

Charles Wilson v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charles Wilson v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

m/s swasti vinayaka synthetics Ltd. Vs brihanmumbai mahanagar palika and 4 Ors.

godrej and boyee mfg go Ltd. and Ors. Vs the muncipal corporation of gr mumbai and Ors.

Akhtarunnisa Mohd. Taufique Vs Anjuman I. Islam and 5 Ors.