Contempt petition filed for alleged disobedience of an order to reconsider a lecturer's appointment. This Court held that passing a non-conforming order does not attract the Contempt of Courts Act and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 114 OF 2012 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9394 OF 2011
Bhimrao Ramchandra Dashwant .. Petitioner
Vs
Dr. A.B. Rajage & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Mihir Desai i/b Mr. Sukumar Ghanvat for the Petitioner
Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No. 1
CORAM : D. D. SINHA &
SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ
DATE : 19th JULY, 2012.
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The present Contempt Petition has been filed for
disobedience of Order dated 19.12.2011 passed by this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 9394 of 2011 came to be disposed of. Paragraph 5 of the Order is relevant for this purpose which reads thus:-
" Hence the communication dated 24 February 2010 is set aside. The University is directed to reconsider the question of granting approval to the appointment of the Petitioner, as a Lecturer. The University is directed to take the decision and communicate to the Petitioner as
Pg 1 of 2
expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from today."
Perusal of these observations show that University was directed to reconsider the question of granting approval to the appointment of Petitioner as a lecturer within the stipulated period. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the University considered this aspect and also passed an order dated 02.02.2012. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the said order is not in conformity with the observations made in paragraph 10 of the Judgment dated 02.07.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1489 of 20101 and therefore, the Respondents have committed contempt.
3. It is difficult for us to agree with the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondents No.1 in view of the direction issued by this Court has passed an order dated 02.02.2012, according to the Petitioner, it does not show that it is in conformity with the order of this Court, that by itself, in our view, does not attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, we dispose of the Contempt Petition accordingly.
[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ]z
jfoanz vkacsjdj
1 Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge Vs State of Maharashtra
Pg 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the fact that the University passed an order not in conformity with earlier observations of this Court constitutes contempt.
Whether non-conformity with the Court's observations absolves the Respondents of contempt liability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge Vs State of MaharashtraReferred¶10
Sudhir Sharadrao Hunge Vs State of Maharashtra
Bhimrao Ramchandra Dashwant
Dr. A.B. Rajage
D. D. SINHA
V. K. TAHILRAMANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
