Disposed

Vijay Motiram Kalbhile v. Deepak Choudhary and Another

Bombay HC18 Jan 2014CP/18/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitions were filed alleging that the Zilla Parishad failed to honor its decision to post petitioners according to their requests and government policy. The High Court reviewed the submissions and files, finding no prima facie case for contempt at the stage. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of without proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petitions disposed of as no prima facie case is made out to initiate proceedings. No order passed against the authority.

Vijay Motiram Kalbhile Vs Deepak Choudhary and Another — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Contempt Petition No.17/2014 with other contempt petitions

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.17 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8980 OF 2012

¶6

Gopalrao s/o Dinkar Firke ... PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Deepak Choudhary & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶10

W I T H

¶11

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.18 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2446 OF 2013

¶12

Vijay s/o Motiram Kalbhile ... PETITIONER

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

Deepak Choudhary & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for

¶16

Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶17

W I T H

¶18

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.19 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3268 OF 2013

¶19

Contempt Petition No.17/2014 with other contempt petitions

¶20

¶21

Sarojini d/o Vikram Nikam ... PETITIONER

¶22

VERSUS

¶23

Deepak Choudhary & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶25

W I T H

¶26

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.20 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3531 OF 2013

¶27

Bhalchandra s/o Hiraji Chaudhari ... PETITIONER

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

Deepak Choudhary & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶30

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶31

W I T H

¶32

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.21 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1905 OF 2013

¶33

Pralhad s/o Narhari Kale

¶34

... PETITIONER

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

Deepak Choudhary & anr. ... RESPONDENTS

¶37

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for

¶38

Contempt Petition No.17/2014 with other contempt petitions

¶39

¶40

Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶41

W I T H

¶42

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.22 OF 2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.778 OF 2013

¶43

VERSUS

¶44

Deepak Choudhary & anr.

¶45

... RESPONDENTS

¶46

Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2

¶47

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

¶48

DATED: 18th January, 2014.

¶49

PER COURT :

¶50

Heard Shri G.K. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.C. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri U.B. Bondar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the orders concerned, on the basis of which contempt petitions are moved.

¶51

In these petitions, in orders concerned, Zilla Parishad was directed to look into the representations of the petitioners. It is claimed, postings as per convenience

¶52

Contempt Petition No.17/2014 with other contempt petitions

¶53

¶54

of petitioners were to be given. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the Zilla Parishad heard the petitioners and even it was decided in the meetings as to where these petitioners may be posted. However, the petitioners have not been accommodated as per the Government policy. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, instead, others have been accommodated where the petitioners could have been posted.

¶55

It is stated that, the general transfers are due in May/ June 2014. On going through these petitions, I find that Zilla Parishad was requested to consider the representations and steps appear to have been taken in that regard. Looking to the facts, I do not find that any prima facie case is made out at this stage to initiate proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act.

¶56

4. Contempt Petitions are disposed of.

¶57

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)

¶58

fmp/cp17.14

Vijay Motiram Kalbhile v. Deepak Choudhary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Motiram Kalbhile v. Deepak Choudhary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinkar Madhav Jorvar Vs Kondiba Damodhar Shelke

Dinkar Madhav Jorvar Vs Kondiba Damodhar Shelke

Sandhya Vishal Deshmukh Vs Vishal Ambadas Deshmukh

Reshma Shrikrishan Pawar Vs Shrikishan Bharat Pawar

Pundlik Bhika Wanve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Shriram Bagul Vs Deepak Choudhary and Another