Dismissed

Parshuram Kashiram Shinde v. Baliram Gopinath Pawar , Addl. Collector (Enc)

Bombay HC11 Aug 2009CONPW/37/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged that the respondent, Additional Collector (ENC), willfully disobeyed a court order directed to pass fresh orders within 8 weeks. The court found the respondent's explanation regarding an additional charge genuine and dismissed the petition, discharging the show cause notice.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; show cause notice issued to respondent discharged.

Parshuram Kashiram Shinde Vs Baliram Gopinath… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

jmi

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.37 OF 2008

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2007

¶7

WITH

¶8

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.299 OF 2008

¶9

¶10

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.37 OF 2008 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2007 .

¶12

Parshuram Kashiram Shinde.

¶13

..Petitioner.

¶14

vs.

¶15

Baliram Gopinath Pawar, Additional

¶16

Collector (ENC) & Western Suburbans. ..Respondent.

¶17

None for Petitioner.

¶18

Mr.A.R. Pande, for Respondent.

¶19

CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 11 TH AUGUST 2009.

¶20

P.C.

¶21

This contempt petition is taken out by the petitioner

¶22

alleging that the respondent, Baliram Gopinath Pawar, Additional

¶23

Collector (Enc.) and Western Suburban, has willfully and deliberately

¶24

disobeyed the order of this Court dated 22nd October 2007 passed in

¶25

¶26

writ petition no.2084 of 2007, directing the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within

¶27

a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶28

According to the petitioner, under the order of this Court

¶29

dated 22nd October 2007, the respondent was required to pass a fresh order on or before 24th December 2008, which he failed to pass.

¶30

According to the respondent, he could pass an order only on 29th February 2008, since he was having the additional charge of removing the slums on the Kalina campus of Mumbai University. It is the case of the respondent that he had dispatched a copy of the said order dated 29th February 2008 forthwith to the petitioner. However,

¶31

the petitioner has alleged that he has not received the same and has filed this contempt petition on 8th April 2008. On 3rd June 2008, an

¶32

order directing notice before admission of the petition was passed by this Court. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent states

¶33

that since the petitioner contended that he has not received a copy of the order dated 29th February 2008, a copy of the same was handed

¶34

¶35

over by him to the petitioner on 1st July 2008. Despite the aforesaid,

¶36

the petitioner did not point out this fact to the Court, when the contempt petition reached before this Court on 4th September 2008,

¶37

because of which this Court once again issued a show cause notice to the respondent. It is submitted on behalf of respondent that he has not received the show cause notice dated 3rd June 2008.

¶38

In any event, since by an order of this Court dated 22nd

¶39

October 2007, the respondent was directed to pass fresh orders “as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.”, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that the respondent was bound to pass an order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It therefore, cannot be contended that since the respondent took some more time than that suggested by the Court, the respondent has committed any willful breach of the order passed by this Court dated 22nd October 2007. In my view, there is no contempt committed by the respondent

¶40

and the explanation given by the respondent that he could not give his

¶41

¶42

decision within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the order, in

¶43

view of holding additional charge of removing the slums from the

¶44

Mumbai University campus at Kalina, also appears to be genuine.

¶45

Contempt petition is therefore dismissed and the show

¶46

cause notice issued to the respondent is hereby discharged.

Parshuram Kashiram Shinde v. Baliram Gopinath Pawar , Addl. Collector (Enc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Kashiram Shinde v. Baliram Gopinath Pawar , Addl. Collector (Enc)

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

Bajaj Processing Industries Vs Fashion Exim India Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. Tool Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Vs K.B. Mruthunjaya Acharya

M.N. Reddy Enterprises Vs Elite Brands Pvt. Ltd.

Madura Coats Employees Union, Bombay Vs Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr.

Sulochana Idansingh Nagpal Vs M/S. Excel Gas Service

Customer Operational Services (Chenni) Pvt. Ltd. Vs -------------------------------------------