Disposed

Madhav Dattatraya Dhaikamblekar v. Nagorao Lalba Bhalke and Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2018CP/45/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that respondents failed to reinstate him as per a previous court order. The court observed that maintainability grounds raised by some respondents had merit and allowed the court to dispose of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to seek other remedies.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is disposed of, subject to the petitioner's liberty to avail other remedies if advised.

Madhav Dattatraya Dhaikamblekar Vs Nagorao Lalba… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

45.18cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6730 OF 2016

¶5

Madhav s/o Dattatraya Dhaikamblekar,
Age: 35 years, Occ: Service,
R/o. At Post Ambulga, Tq. Kandhar,
District Nanded...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. Nagorao s/o Lalba Bhalke, Secretary, Shubh Sandesh Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.

¶8

2. Shamrao s/o Kondiba Ghatewad, Headmaster, Anudanit Adivasi Ashram School, Mulzara, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded.

¶9

3. Shri. Ramchandra Kulkarni, Tribal Development Commissioner, Nashik.

¶10

4. Girish Sarode, The Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Amravati Division, Amravati.

¶11

5. Amit Khumbhar, Tribal Development Integrity Development Department, Project Office, Kinwat ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr G.J. Karne, Advocate for petitioner;

¶13

Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent
Nos.1 & 2;

¶14

Mr S.Y. Mahajan, A.G.P. for respondent/State

¶15

45.18cp

¶16

(2)

¶17

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶18

 DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2018

¶19

ORAL ORDER :

¶20

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.

¶21

2.The petitioner is before this Court with a
grievance that the order passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 6730 of 2016 dated 28th February,
2017 is not complied with. Perusal of the order of
this Court shows that the institute and headmaster
were before this Court challenging the order dated
30th January, 2015 passed by the Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department, Maharashtra State,
Nashik. The said order dated 30th January, 2015 is
also placed on record.

¶22

3.Perusal of the above referred order shows

¶23

that the Commissioner, Tribal Development

¶24

Department, considering the grievance of the

¶25

(3)

¶26

petitioner, directed Additional Commissioner to
take necessary steps to reinstate the petitioner.
Copy of the said order was also provided to the
institute. It was submission of the Counsel that
as the petition filed by the institute is dismissed
and as the order of the Commissioner is uphold by
this Court and as till date, no steps are taken by
the respondents, non action of the respondents is
an act of contempt of this Court.

¶27

4.On behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, reply
is filed by Mr. Girish s/o Narendra Sarode,
occupying the post of Additional Commissioner,
Tribal Development Department, Amravati. In the

¶28

said reply, reference is made to exchange of
various communications. Reply filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shows that respondent Nos.1
and 2 are raising ground of maintainability in
opposing the contempt petition.

¶29

5.Mr. Killarikar, learned Counsel appearing

¶30

for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 invited our attention

¶31

45.18cp (4)

¶32

to the affidavit in reply and submitted that
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raised ground of

¶33

maintainability of the present contempt petition.
There is merit in the submission of Mr. Killarikar,

¶34

learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

¶35

6.Considering these facts, we dispose of the
contempt petition, with a liberty to the petitioner
to avail appropriate remedy if so advised. The
petition is disposed of with liberty as granted by
us.

¶36

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶37

Digitally signed S.U. by S.U. Tupe Date: 2018.10.11 14:55:06 +0530 Tupe

¶38

Tupe

Madhav Dattatraya Dhaikamblekar v. Nagorao Lalba Bhalke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Dattatraya Dhaikamblekar v. Nagorao Lalba Bhalke 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

Manisha Vilas Vane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Satpuda Shikshan Sanstha Bhusawal through Its Secretary v M Mahajan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Atmaram Bhaurao Mali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anuradha Vasantrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyandeo Pandharinath Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Ratnadeep Nagari Sahakari Pat Pedhi Ltd.