Petitioner filed a contempt prayer regarding delayed disposal of a representation by the respondent. Court found delay was not intentional and disposed of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.
Contempt petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
CP215-17
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.215/2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4314/2017 (D) (ZANAKLAL SARJULAL LILHARE VERSUS ATUL J. GUDADHE, SECRETARY, GP RATNARA, GONDIA)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
A.D. UPADHYE, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 15, 2018.
By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks an action against respondent for willful disobedience of the direction in the order dated 07.07.2017.
According to the petitioner, though this Court had, by the order dated 07.07.2017, directed the respondent to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner within two weeks, the respondent had not taken any decision on the representation.
The learned counsel for the respondent states that though there is some delay on the part of the respondent in deciding the representation, the same is not deliberate or intentional. It is stated that the representation of the petitioner was decided on 12.08.2017. It is stated that since the delay is not deliberate and intentional, the contempt action may not be initiated against the respondent.
Since the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent on 12.08.2017, it would be necessary to dispose of the contempt petition as the delay in deciding the representation
CP215-17
2
does not appear to be deliberate or intentional.
Hence, we dispose of the contempt petition with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt action should be initiated for a delay in deciding a representation that was not deliberate or intentional.
Whether a court order directing disposal of a representation within a timeline was violated by a two-week delay.
Zanaklal Sarjulal Lilhare
Atul J. Gadadhe
Vasanti Naik
Aditya D. Upadhye
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
