Dismissed

Shashikant Sahebrao Barge and Ors. v. Vidya Pandurang Vaje and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2014CP/48/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of Contempt Petition No. 48 of 2011. The counsel for the petitioner alleged non-compliance of a transfer order. However, the counsel for the respondent submitted an affidavit confirming full compliance with the court's direction from Writ Petition No. 2961/2009. Finding compliance established, the Court deemed it unnecessary to proceed further and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition is disposed of as it is no longer necessary to proceed further due to compliance.

Shashikant Sahebrao Barge and Ors. Vs Vidya… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Contempt Petition No. 48 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2011 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2009

¶6

Shashikant s/o Sahebrao Barge & others

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Vidya w/o Pandurang Vaje & anr. ... Respondents

¶10

Shri L.V. Sangit, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for respondent No. 1 Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondent No. 1 / State

¶11

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

¶12

DATED : 9th JANUARY, 2014

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners had filed Writ Petition bearing No. 2961/2009 before this Court, challenging the transfer orders from aided school to unaided school, and though the petitioners were earlier approved teaching and non-teaching staff members, they were transferred to unaided school.

¶15

Reference is made to para No. 11 of the order dated 04-03-2010 in Writ Petition No. 2961/2009. The learned counsel

¶16

for the petitioners submits that there was order directing

¶17

¶18

Contempt Petition No. 48 of 2011

¶19

respondent No. 1 to treat the petitioners, as approved members of teaching and/or non-teaching staff, as the case may be, of an aided school and that their services are approved, in an aided school, and that they cannot be transferred to unaided school. He stated that Order was not complied. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 1 had preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17328/2010, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the same was dismissed.

¶20

The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 tendered copy of affidavit in Writ Petition No. 2961/2009 regarding compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17328/2010. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the respondents have now duly complied the order, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2961/2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order has now been complied by respondent No. 1.

¶21

In that view of the matter, it is now not necessary to proceed further in this Contempt Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶22

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

¶23

SDM* January-2014/ Contempt Petition 48.2011

Shashikant Sahebrao Barge and Ors. v. Vidya Pandurang Vaje and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Sahebrao Barge and Ors. v. Vidya Pandurang Vaje and Anr.

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

Chandarani@Sejal Sachin Wakle Vs Sachin Sadhuram Wakle

Vijaya Shankar Saraf Vs Dr Ramaswami N Chief Ex Officer Z P Jalgaon

Prajakta Parag Shelke Vs Parag Pandharinath Shelke

Neha Narendra Nisal Vs Narendra Shrikrushna Nisal

M/S Ganesh Ginning and Pressing and Ors. Vs Praveenkumar Bajranglal Agrawal

Pradip Pitambar Patil and Another Vs Sitaram Gulabchand Agrawal and Others