Dismissed

Mrs. Suhasini S. Govekar and 2 Ors. v. Shri Gopal Jha, Under Secretary of the Govt. of India.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2017CP/21/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition filed for non-compliance with a previous order directing disposal of an application under the Citizenship Act, the Court observed that the defendant government had taken a decision and tendered an unconditional apology. Finding no deliberate intention to disobey, the contempt petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed in the interest of justice; liberty reserved to challenge the final order if advised.

Mrs. Suhasini S. Govekar and 2 Ors. Vs Shri Gopal Jha… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 21/2016 IN WRIT PETITION No.639/2014

¶4

MRS.SUHASINI S. GOVENKAR, aged 46 years, wife of Surendra Govekar, resident of House No.455/2, Dabol Waddo, Caisua, Anjuna, Bardez-Goa.

¶5

MRS.SHITAL S. DABHOLKAR, aged 42 years, wife of Sachitanand Dabholkar, resident of House No. 323/A, Caisua, Anjuna, Bardez-Goa.

¶6

MR.SANDEEP P.CHOMULKAR, aged 59 years, son of Pandurang Chimulkar, resident of House No. 1110, Mazal Waddo, Anjuna, Bardez-Goa. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SHRI GOPAL JHA, Under Secretary of the Government of India, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, having office at NDCC-II Building, Jaisingh Road, New Delhi-110001. RESPONDENT .

¶9

Shri D.J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M. Amonkar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & NUTAN D.SARDESSAI, JJ DATE : 14^th MARCH, 2017.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Anoop V. Mohta, J .):

¶12

¶13

Heard learned Advocates appearing for the

¶14

respectively parties finally.

¶15

The petitioners have taken out Contempt Petition, as in-spite of the specific order to dispose off the application dated 23.12.2013 under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which the respondent for the reasons specially stated in the affidavit dated 20^th December, 2016 and by tendering apology at paragraph 11 and affidavit dated 16.2.2017 in paragraph no. 1 conceded that they could not comply in prescribed period.

¶16

“11. I say that, for the reasons stated herein above this Authority could not comply with the directions of this Hon'ble Court and begs pardon of this Hon'ble Court and in above circumstances prays that, the Contempt Petition filed by the Petitioners be disposed off.

¶17

Para 1: I say that, then incumbent have received the notice of above contempt application filed by the petitioners for not complying with orders dated 03.02.2015 of this Hon'ble Court passed in Writ Petition No.639/2014 directing him/her to dispose of the application dated 23.12.2013 filed by the petitioners under Section 9(2) of Citizenship Act and in pursuance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court. I tender my unconditional apology for inability of Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. Central Government to dispose of said application for the reasons set out hereinafter”.

¶18

¶19

The statement is now made on affidavit dated 16.2.2017 by Mr. Gopal Zha by annexing a copy of the decision dated 9^th January 2017 informing that they have taken decision. For the reasons so stated in the affidavits, the respondents now have taken decision so referred above reflect the bonafide reason in taking delayed decision.

¶20

There was no intention to disregard the order passed by this Court and as the files were moving for appropriate approval and orders, it took time to take ultimate decision. It was not only the question of deciding the case/application of the petitioner but for such similar applications, which were pending with the State. Considering the importance of granting or rejection of such application under Section 9(2) of the Citizenship Act and its effect, such applications could not have been disposed off lightly. The Department ultimately, after considering the provisions of law including the issues concerning thousands of Goans and the proposed amicable solution after examining, all the related aspects and after re-examining even by the concerned Ministry of Home Affairs i.e. Central Government under the provisions of Schedule III, Rule 40 (2) of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and considering the importance given by the inter-Ministerial High Level Committee and by giving opportunity they have passed the order at Annexure R1 and R2. We are inclined to observe that

¶21

¶22

this is not a case where the respondents deliberately with the intention to delay or disobey the order passed by this Court have been postponing the decision. As the decision is already taken in the background referred above, we are inclined to observe that no case is made out for issuing contempt and for action based upon the statement for non-compliance with the order by the respondents. Apart from this, the respondents in the affidavits have also tendered an unconditional apology which in the fact and circumstances of the case are sufficient to dispose off these specifically that in the facts that the decision has already been contempt petition. In the result, no case is made out for contempt.

¶23

However, liberty to the petitioners to challenge the final orders so passed, if advised, in accordance with law. The petitioners are always at liberty to raise all the issues in accordance with law. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶24

NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

¶25

ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶26

mukund

Mrs. Suhasini S. Govekar and 2 Ors. v. Shri Gopal Jha, Under Secretary of the Govt. of India.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Suhasini S. Govekar and 2 Ors. v. Shri Gopal Jha, Under Secretary of the Govt. of India.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri v. Veeraju (Senior Citizen)., Vs Reserve Bank of India, Thr. RBI and 6 Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Bhat and 6 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye and 3 Ors., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Chief Secrtary and 13 Ors.

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Asso. of India at Goa (Credai) Rep. by Jose Braganza AND2OR Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep. by Its Add. Commissioner (Rev.) and Anr.

Shamsundar Anchan @ Shyam, Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Colvale., Vs State, Thr. Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station and Anr.

Mrs. Suhasini S. Govekar., Vs the Under Secretary, Govt. of India and 2 Ors.