Disposed

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap v. S P Jaiswal and Others

Bombay HC1 Dec 2016CP/444/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of a contempt petition filed regarding non-compliance of an order in Writ Petition No. 11662/2015. Finding that the respondents had conducted the directed enquiry, the Court held the order was complied with in letter and spirit, noting it had not adjudicated merits.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; Civil Application allowed to be withdrawn.

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap Vs S P Jaiswal and Others — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

CP 444/16 in WP 11662/15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.444/2016
IN
 WRIT PETITION NO.11662/2015
WITH
 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13661/2016

¶6

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

...Respondents...

¶10

 .....

¶11

Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.P.V. Diggikar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for applicant in CA 13661/16.

¶12

 .....

¶13

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 01.12.2016

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

1]Mr.Nagargoje, learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶17

submits that the writ petition was filed by the
petitioner seeking implementation of the order dated

¶18

21.4.2015 passed by the Deputy Director of Education,

¶19

Aurangabad Division. This Court on the basis of the
affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 therein disposed

¶20

CP 444/16 in WP 11662/15

¶21

- 2 -

¶22

of the writ petition with a direction to complete the
said enquiry within eight weeks. The said order will
have to be considered in the context of the prayers made
in the petition. The respondent no.3 in the said writ
petition made the Court believe that he is taking steps
and pursuant thereto, without entering into the merits of

¶23

the matter, the Court disposed of the proceedings. The
affidavit filed does not show that enquiry in respect of
the points raised in the petition was made. The order of
this Court is not complied with.

¶24

2]Learned AGP states that the affidavit is filed. The
enquiry, as was stated in the affidavit, is conducted and
even recovery was ordered, however, the persons against
whom recovery is ordered, have filed writ petition in
this Court and order of status-quo has been passed. The
respondents have not committed any contempt of orders of
this Court.

¶25

3]The contempt jurisdiction will have to be strictly
construed. This Court did not pass any orders on merits
in Writ Petition No.11662/2015. Relying on paragraph no.
5 of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent no.3
therein, the Court observed that it does not propose to

¶26

CP 444/16 in WP 11662/15

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

go into the merits of the matter and expected the enquiry
initiated to be completed as expeditiously as possible
and preferably within a period of eight weeks. The
enquiry subsequently is concluded. The respondents are
at liberty to take further steps as per the enquiry.

¶29

4]In the present contempt petition, we are not
concerned with the merits of the contentions raised.
This Court would be concerned with the compliance of the
orders passed. This Court had not passed any orders on
merits. On the contrary, in paragraph no.3 of the order,
it was observed as under:-

¶30

“It is made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter.”

¶31

It was also observed in paragraph no.2 as under:-

¶32

“In view of the statement made by respondent no.
3 in para 5 of his affidavit-in-reply, we do not
propose to go into the merits of the matter.
However, we hope and expect that the inquiry
initiated should be completed as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within a period of
eight weeks from today.”

¶33

5]The order does not clarify as to the nature of
enquiry and further steps that were directed to be

¶34

CP 444/16 in WP 11662/15

¶35

undertaken by the respondents. If after the enquiry,
some orders are passed, the said orders are required to
be assailed in appropriate proceedings. The contempt
proceedings cannot be entertained in that regard.

¶36

6]Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, as
the enquiry is concluded as per the affidavit filed by
the present respondent no.2, the order in letter and
spirit stands complied with.

¶37

7]The contempt petition accordingly stands disposed
of. No costs. Civil Application No.13661/2016 for
intervention is allowed to be withdrawn at the request of
the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶38

ndk/ c11216.doc

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap v. S P Jaiswal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadashiv Tukaram Sanap v. S P Jaiswal and Others

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

Rafia Begam Ansari Sabbir Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Aruna Dinkar Mane Vs the Chief Ex Officer Z P Beed and Ors.

Balwant Ramrao Ambad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Gangaram Waghmare Vs the Director of Archives Govt. of Mah Elphinstone College

Sumanbai Bhaurao Shinde Vs Veeraswami Nandaiyya Nagula

Harlal Laxman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others