Dismissed

Harisundar Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir v. Ujwal Uke and Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2014CP/33/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged violation of a previous court order by the respondents for rejecting an application regarding a Balak Ashram. The court held that once the respondents considered the application and recorded reasons, the dispute on the correctness of the order cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition rejected; observations limited to this case.

Harisundar Mahila Bahuuddeshiya… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp33.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.33 OF 2014 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7451 OF 2010

¶7

Hari Sundar Mahila Bhauyudeshiya
Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir,
Dist-Latur,
Through its Secretary,
Sow. Shilatai Madhavrao Alat,
Age-Major, Occu:Sercretary,
R/o-Krishna Nagar, Shelal Road,
Udgir, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1) Ujwal Uke,
 Secretary, Women & Child
 Development Department, New
 Administration Bhavan, Third Floor,
 Madham Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru

¶11

 Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,

¶12

2) The Commissioner,

¶13

 Office of Women and Child Development,
 3 Church Road, Pune-1,

¶14

3) The District Women and Child Development Officer, Latur.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

cp33.14

¶17

¶18

...

¶19

 Shri.A.S. Bayas Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri.S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶20

...

¶21

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

¶22

 DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2014

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

1. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and

¶25

learned A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶26

2.This Contempt Petition is moved on the
ground that the concerned order dated 30th July,
2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7451 of 2010, has
been violated by the Respondents. It is claimed
that after the orders representation was filed,
but the same has been wrongly rejected.

¶27

3.The order dated 30th July, 2012, directed
the Petitioner to file fresh application within
four weeks from that date. However the application
was filed on 7th September, 2012. It was clearly

¶28

cp33.14

¶29

¶30

after four weeks, hence grievance of the
Petitioner regarding violation of orders of this
Court does not survive. Even otherwise, the
Petition shows that the Respondents considered the
application and by order dated 28th January 2013,
recorded reasons why request of Petitioner for
Balak Ashram at Ahmedpur is being rejected.

¶31

4.The learned counsel for the Petitioner is

¶32

trying to submit that there was case to grant
permission to the Petitioner and the orders passed
are not correct.

¶33

5.Going through the concerned orders dated
30th July, 2012, the direction to Respondents was

¶34

to examine the application and take necessary
decision. Once Respondents have taken decision, in

¶35

contempt proceedings this Court cannot sit in
Judgment over the dispute, whether or not the
orders passed on 28th January 2013 are correct.
The Petitioner may seek his remedies separately,

¶36

cp33.14

¶37

¶38

as permissible in law. There is no substance in
the Contempt Petition.

¶39

6.In the result, the Contempt Petition is

¶40

rejected.

¶41

7.It is made clear that observations made
above are limited for the purpose of deciding this
Contempt Petition.

¶42

 [A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.]

¶43

asb/JAN14

Harisundar Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir v. Ujwal Uke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harisundar Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir v. Ujwal Uke and Others

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

Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha, Kotul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shivprakash Ramkishan Malpani and Ors. Vs Kunal Ashokrao Aher and Others

Sachin Pandurang Marathe Vs Ajitkumar Vasantrao Patil

Sitaram Bhaurao Thorat and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Subhash Bhosale Vs Surekha Shrikrishna Bhosale and Another

Santosh Subhash Bhosale Vs Surekha Shrikrishna Bhosale and Another