This contempt petition was disposed of as the respondent Education Officer had complied with the High Court's directions by the time of hearing, with the petitioner unrepresented.
The contempt petition is disposed of.
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 22-cp131-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2016
IN WP/10821/2014
SHAIKH AKHTAR AHMED MD. SHAFIUDDIN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
None present for petitioner
Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for respondent no.1
Mr.U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent no.2
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 08, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard.
2]When the matter is called out, none appears
for the petitioner.
3]The learned Counsel appearing for respondent
no.2 has tendered across the Bar a copy of the
order passed by respondent no.2. The same is taken
on record.
2 22-cp131-16.odt
4]In the light of the order passed by respondent
no.2 – Education Officer (Primary), Latur, it
appears that the directions of this Court have
been complied with. In that view of the matter,
this Contempt Petition stands disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
Shaikh Akhtar Ahmed Md. Shafiuddin
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. Shinde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court