Dismissed

Prashant Prakashchand Bora v. Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) and Others

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018CP/146/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order disposing of a contempt petition challenging non-compliance with a prior writ order. The court examined a communication from the Commissioner of Police noting the petitioner’s representation and directing subordinate officers to act. Finding the order was complied with, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the petition was disposed of as the order of this court was found to have been complied with.

Prashant Prakashchand Bora Vs Yashasvi Yadav, Police… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 Contempt Petn. No. 146/2018

¶2

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

¶3

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 146 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1809 of 2017

¶4

Prashant S/o Prakashchandra Bora, age 41 years occupation business R/o Flat No. 3, Manohari Apartment, Sahayognagar, Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad.

¶5

... APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shri Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) Through : The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad

¶8

The Police Inspector, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad (City) .

¶9

Dnyaneshwar S/o Bhagchand Thombre, age 44 years occupation business R/o Pandhari Pimpalgaon Taluka & District Aurangabad.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr Milind K. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr D.R. Kale, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, AND

¶13

SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 15^th March 2018

¶15

ORAL ORDER :

¶16

Heard Mr Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶17

petitioner.

¶18

2 Contempt Petn. No. 146/2018

¶19

Grievance of the petitioner is that Order passed by The

¶20

Division Bench of This Court in Writ Petition No. 1809 of 2017 dated 23^rd January 2018 is not complied with.

¶21

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted before us

¶22

copy of the communication dated 3^rd February 2018. Perusal of the communication shows that the Commissioner of Police took note of the representation submitted by the petitioner and in compliance of the order of This Court, issued necessary directions to the subordinate Officer. The communication states that the subordinate Officer is also directed to take necessary steps expeditiously and submit the compliance report to the Commissioner.

¶23

In view of the communication placed on record dated 3^rd February 2018, which is marked “X” for identification, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner of Police acted in compliance of the

¶24

order of This Court and also issued necessary directions to his subordinate officers. In view of this fact, namely, there is compliance of the order of This Court, nothing remains in the petition, and the petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

( SMT. VIBHA V. KANKANWADI ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE. JUDGE.

¶26

Madkar

Prashant Prakashchand Bora v. Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Prakashchand Bora v. Yashasvi Yadav, Police Commissioner, Aurangabad (City) and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Tulshiram Phirange (C-9797) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Shrirang Jadhav (C-31) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohd Ali Mohd Habib Shaikh C-4654 Vs Sandeep Kamble and Another

Virbhadra S/O Manmathappa Jante and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kunal Ashok Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tekchand Tanhaji Wani Thu His Gpa M/S Sunrise Trade Centre Thu Partners Shaikh Abood and Others Vs Municipal Corporation Aurangabad through Its Commissioner Aurangabad