Contempt petitioner alleged disobedience of 18.4.2013 order regarding encroachment removal. This bench found that the respondent affidavit showed effective steps were being taken. Dismissed the contempt petition as no willful disobedience was established.
Contempt petition stands disposed of owing to lack of proof of willful disobedience.
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.
107.14cp
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
________________________________________________________ CONT. PETITION NO. 107 OF 2014 IN WP/3028/2013
BHAUSAHEB MURLIDHAR MOTE VERSUS DR. SANJIV KUMAR AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.K.D. Mote AGP for State/Respo: Mrs.Manjusha Deshpande.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: April 16, 2014
Heard.
2 This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 18th April, 2013. It is contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that in spite of direction of the Division Bench of this Court to the Collector, Ahmednagar to consider the complaint tendered by the petitioner on 6.12.2012 and to take appropriate decision thereon
107.14cp
2
expeditiously, no decision has been taken by the Collector.
3 In reply to the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP appearing for the State invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Tahsildar, Newasa and in particular, para 6 thereof and submitted that already measurement is carried out and notice is also issued to the encroacher and after following procedure, the authority will take necessary steps / decision.
4 In the light of the averments in the affidavit-in-reply and in particular, para 6 thereof, in our opinion, steps are being taken by the respondent - authority for removal of encroachment. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that such decision is not taken and therefore, it amounts to contempt, cannot be accepted. In the first place, to accept the case of the petitioner, that there is a contempt, there should be willful disobedience by the respondent – authority. The Tahsildar, Newasa in clear
107.14cp
3
words has stated in the reply that effective steps are being taken to remove the encroachment.
5 In that view of the matter, this contempt petition stands disposed of.
(V.K. JADHAV, J) (S.S. SHINDE, J)
kadam/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority's reply regarding steps taken to remove encroachment constitutes willful disobedience of the court's order attracting contempt.
Whether the petitioner has established that no decision has been taken by the Collector despite the court's direction.
Bhausah Murlidhar Mote
Dr. Sanjiv Kumar
S.S. Shinde
V.K. Jadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
