Petitioner challenged a contempt order regarding her transfer dispute. Noting the underlying writ petition was disposed of satisfying the purpose, the High Court disposed of the contempt petition without substantive elaboration.
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.
1 CP567.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 567 OF 2018 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7831 OF 2017
Smt. Sangita Chintamani Koli
Petitioner...
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents...
Mr S. C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr S. Y. Mahajan, AGP for respondent/State Mr S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr K. D. Mundhe, advocate for respondent No. 3
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2018.
PER COURT :-
submits that, the petitioner was before this Court raising grievance against her transfer. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dt.22.02.2018 in Writ Petition No. 7831 of 2017, directed the
respondents to accommodate the petitioner on the vacant post available with respondent No. 2, without affecting the respondent No. 4. As per the instructions of the learned counsel, necessary
orders have been passed protecting the interest of the petitioner.
2 CP567.2018
the petitioner, the purpose of approaching this Court by way of the present petition is served. The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
[ MANISH PITALE ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
Smt. Sangita Chintamani Koli
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
