Dismissed

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh v. K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC21 Mar 2018CP/52/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt petition challenged non-implementation of a release order. The court accepted the State's explanation that it sought a stay at the Supreme Court and found no willful disobedience, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition against the respondents is dismissed as the grievance regarding release is deemed redressed.

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh Vs K. Subramanyam, Principal… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

cp52.18

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 52 OF 2018 IN

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2017

¶6

Jafar s/o Abdul Haq Shaikh, Age: 57 years, Occu: Prisoner convict No. C-7682, Central Prison, Harsool, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad ..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

Bhushan Kumar Upadhya, Inspector General of Police (Prison), Maharashtra State, Pune

¶10

Rejendra Dhamane, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prison), Central Prison, Harsool, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad

¶11

Bapurao Ramrao More, Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Harsool, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr M. S. Choudhary, Advocate for petitioner; Mr D. R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondents

¶13

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE

¶14

AND

¶15

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.

¶16

DATE : 21st March, 2018

(2)

cp52.18

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶21

It was submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that inspite of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 24th November, 2017 in Writ Petition No.1293 of 2017, thereby directing the respondentsauthorities to release the petitioner on furlough subject to the compliance of procedural formalities, the order of this Court was not implemented.

¶22

The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that that the order of this Court was subject matter of challenge before the Honourable Apex Court. He submits that the State has preferred appeal in special leave petition and it was pending before the Apex Court for consideration and resultantly writ petition petition is decided and leave petition filed by the State is dismissed by order of Honourable Apex Court dated 12th March, 2018. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor then submits that in view of the dismissal of special leave petition, immediately the action is taken to comply the order of this Court. He submits that fresh orders of release of petitioner would be passed within ten days from today. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no willful disobedience of the order of this Court on the part of the authorities but the authorities only availing legal remedies, namely, approaching Honourable Apex Court by filing special leave petition.

¶23

cp52.18

¶24

(3)

¶25

In view of this statement of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, we are of the opinion that there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court and ultimately statement is made before this Court that fresh orders would be passed within 10 days from today, we accept the statement of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and record the same. The grievance of the petitioner which was in the petition for his release is now redressed.

¶26

In view of above referred facts, the petition is disposed of.

¶27

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶28

sjk

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh v. K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Abdul Haq Shaikh v. K. Subramanyam, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralay, Mumbai 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

Poonamchand S/O. Ramanand Mor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parmeshwar S/O. Chandrakant Yenge 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

Saiyed Najer S/O. Saiyed Sandhu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan S/O. Rajendra Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Swati Trimbak Khamkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra