Disposed

Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2014CP/372/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding non-compliance with directions to issue a No Objection Certificate for a fisheries society registration, the court noted the impugned order was already subject to a separate writ petition. Finding no evidence of wilful disobedience requiring intervention, the court disposed of the current contempt proceeding without further orders.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition is disposed of. No further orders are required at this stage.

Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavasaik Sahakari… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cp372.10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.372 OF 2010 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4013 OF 2009

¶7

Proposed Shriram Samarth Maschya
Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Peer Kalyan, Taluka and District
Jalna, Through its Chief Promoter,
Shri. Sadashiv s/o Bhivsan Shirpure,
Age-56 years, Occu:Fisherman,
R/o-Peer Kalyan, Taluka and
District Jalna.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

 VERSUS

¶10

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Secretary,
 Milk, Animal Husbandry and
 Fishery Department,
 Mantralaya, Maharashtra State,
 Mumbai,

¶11

2) The Assistant Registrar,
 Co-operative Societies (Dairy),
 Jalna, District Jalna,

¶12

3) Pathan Mazar Ali Khan, Age-51 years, Occu:Service as The Assistant Commissioner Of Fishery (Technical), Jalna,

¶13

cp372.10

¶14

¶15

4) Jalna Machimar Sahakari Sanstha
 Ltd. Jalna, Taluka and District
 Jalna, Through its Chairman/
 Secretary.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

...

¶18

 Shri R.T. Nagargoje Advocate for Petitioner.
 Shri S.R. Palnitkar, A.G.P. for Respondent
 Nos. 1 and 2.

¶19

 Shri S.B. Joshi Advocate for Respondent No.3.
 None present for Respondent No.4.

¶20

...

¶21

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

¶22

 DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2014

¶23

ORAL ORDER :

¶24

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. The

¶25

present Contempt Petition is moved with reference

¶26

to directions in Para 5 of Judgment dated 29th
September, 2009 in Writ Petition No.4013 of 2009.

¶27

According to the learned counsel for Petitioner,

¶28

the order dated 30th May 2009, which was impugned

¶29

in said Writ Petition, was quashed and set aside

¶30

by the Court and the matter was remitted back to
Respondent No.3 for deciding the application in

¶31

accordance with the norms prescribed by the
Government for considering the application of
Petitioner for issuance of a No Objection
Certificate.

¶32

2.According to learned counsel for

¶33

Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 forwarded the
proposal to Respondent No.3, as can be seen from
Exhibit B of this Petition. It has been argued

¶34

that Respondent No.3 should have decided the
application for no objection certificate, but the
same has not been done.

¶35

3.Learned counsel for Respondent No.3

¶36

refers to Additional Affidavit dated 18th July,
2010 filed on behalf of Respondent No.3 and along
with affidavit, Annexure B dated 3rd November,

¶37

2010, by which, giving reasons, the representation
of the Petitioner has been rejected as stated in

¶38

Para 4 of Additional Affidavit. It is submitted by

¶39

the counsel that against the rejection of the

¶40

cp372.10

¶41

¶42

proposal, the Petitioner has already filed another
Writ Petition No.11169 of 2010 and the matter is
already pending before the Court.

¶43

4.It is contended by the learned counsel

¶44

for the Petitioner that what was done by
Respondent No.3 in order dated 3rd November 2010,
was that he rejected the whole proposal for
registration of fisheries society, instead of
giving him or refusing no objection certificate.
Thus, according to him, this is not compliance of
the orders of the Court.

¶45

5.Against this, learned counsel for

¶46

Respondent No.3 is pointing out that in view of

¶47

the order passed in Writ Petition No.4013 of 2009,
dated 29th September 2009, the letter dated 9th

¶48

October, 2009 (Exhibit B of the Petition) was
issued to Respondent No.3. According to the
counsel, the title of the letter itself shows that
the subject which was to be decided, was to issue

¶49

cp372.10

¶50

¶51

no objection certificate for registration of
society. What was sought was No Objection for
Registration of Society. The Respondent No.3 thus
decided that the proposal for registration of
society can not be accepted. Thus according to
counsel, Respondent No.3 has already complied the
order.

¶52

6.Looking to the observations in Para-4 and

¶53

the orders passed in Para-5 of the order
concerned, the Respondent No.3 has taken steps and
passed order dated 3rd November, 2010. Whether or

¶54

not the said order is complete compliance of the
directions of the Court, the same order is already
in dispute in Writ Petition No.11169 of 2010. For
such reasons, it cannot be said that there is
wilful disobedience. Both the sides are seriously
disputing what are the powers or not of Respondent
No.3. As the same order or letter is already
pending adjudication in Writ Petition, I do not
think any further orders are required to be passed

¶55

cp372.10

¶56

¶57

in this Contempt Petition.

¶58

7.For the reasons stated above, Contempt
Petition is disposed of.

¶59

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

¶60

asb/JAN14

Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Proposed Shriram Samarth Mascha Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Bhagwan Barate Vs Bajrang Bhagwan Shinde and Others

Amrut Bapurao Kusale Vs Anil Ambadasrao Mahajan and Ors.

Roshanbi Rasool Tamboli and Others Vs Rajendra Ramchandra Patil and Others

Vaidhyakiya Karmachari Sanghtana Ahmednagar Zilla Ahmednagar. and Ors. Vs Rural Medical College, Thr. Its Principal Dr. S Venkataramani and Ors.

Shaikh Kadir Shaikh Shammad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chhagan Sonu Nikumbhe Vs Begambai Piran Naik and Ors.