This High Court bench disposed of a contempt petition filed alleging a violation of a prior order due to delay in deciding a representation. The court found the respondents explanation for administrative delay acceptable and deemed it unnecessary to entertain the plea.
Contempt petition disposed of; no further relief granted.
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.
- 1 -
CP 76/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.76/2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9596/2012
Utkarsh Co-op.Housing Society Ltd.
Nakshatrawadi, Aurangabad,
through its Secretary
Prabhakar Murlidharrao Neb.
...Petitioner..
Versus
Dr.Harshdeep Kambale & another.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri F.R. Tandale, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri C.V. Thombre, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2.
.....
CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 08.04.2014
ORDER :
1]The petitioner is alleging violation of the order
passed in Writ Petition No.9596/2012 decided on 7.2.2014.
This Court, in view of the statement made by the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents that the
representation tendered by the petitioner would be
decided and the decision would be communicated to the
CP 76/14
petitioner by registered post acknowledgment due within
four weeks from the date of the order, had disposed of
the said writ petition. The petitioner contends that the
representation has not been decided within the time
stipulated and as such there is violation of the order
passed by this Court.
2]An affidavit in reply has been presented on behalf
of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the
time was consumed for taking decision on the application
due to administrative reasons and there is no intentional
act of violation of directions issued by this Court. A
decision has been taken by the Corporation on 21.2.2014,
copy of which is annexed at Exhibit R-3 wherein it has
been recorded that since some interested persons have
raised objection to the entitlement of the petitioner to
claim TDR, the claim of the petitioner does not deserve
consideration. It is further recorded that the
petitioner may claim its entitlement after determination
of its rights in the pending civil litigation.
3]In view of the decision rendered by the respondents
on 21.2.2014, we do not deem it necessary to entertain
the contempt petition. The explanation tendered by the
CP 76/14
respondents for delayed decision deserves acceptance.
The contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(A.M. BADAR, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)
ndk/c841423
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be entertained given the respondents stated acceptance of their explanation for delay in decision.
Utkarsh Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. through its Secretary Prabhakar Murlidharrao Neb.
Dr.Harshdeep Kambale
another
R.M. Borde
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court