Disposed

The Retgistrar Judicial High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC5 Oct 2018SMC/2/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suo moto contempt petition was filed against an Education Officer for violating a prior order by rejecting a proposal on invalid grounds. The Respondent appeared, offered an unconditional apology citing inadvertence, and provided an undertaking. The court accepted the apology, purged the contempt, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt is purged. Petition disposed of.

The Retgistrar Judicial High Court of Bombay Bench… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

cp2.18

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

SUO MOTO CONTEMPT PETITION NO.2 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.837 OF 2018

¶5

The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, MumbaI – 32 (As a formal party) 2) Bhawana Patilbuwa Rajnur, Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed At present working as Divisional Secretary at Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Divisional Board, Washi, Navi Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr G.O. Wattamwar , A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr U.S. Mote, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶9

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶10

MANISH PITALE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 5th October, 2018

¶12

ORAL ORDER:

¶13

The present suo moto contempt was initiated in view of the

¶14

cp2.18

¶15

(2)

¶16

observations of this Court in the judgment and order dated 13^th April, 2018 in Writ Petition No.837 of 2018. In Writ Petition No.9709 of 2016, by order dated 23^rd November, 2017, the Education Officer was directed not to reject the proposal on the ground that surplus candidates were available. The Education Officer, on 3^rd January, 2018 rejected the proposal assigning the very ground. The Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 3^rd January, 2018. Rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) and Registrar (Judicial) was directed to register suo moto contempt petition against respondent no.2 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Beed.

¶17

On 21^st September, 2018 Smt. Bhavna d/o Patilbuwa Rajnur, Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, at present posted at Ratnagiri, was present before this Court. Time was sought for to take necessary steps for engaging a Counsel and submitting reply affidavit.

¶18

Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 invited our attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 Smt. Bhavna d/o Patilbuwa Rajnur. At the outset, respondent no.2 Smt. Bhavna d/o Patilbuwa Rajnur tenders unconditional apology and regret. In the affidavit in reply it is further stated that the order dated 3^rd January, 2018 was passed only because of inadvertence and because of a communication gap, namely, the earlier order passed by this Court was not brought to the notice of Smt.

¶19

cp2.18

¶20

(3)

¶21

Rajnur. Respondent no.2 was under an impression that she was to decide the proposal expeditiously within a stipulated period of three months and under a misconception and due to pure inadvertence, the order dated 3^rd January,l 2018 was passed. The statement is also made at paragraph 5 of the affidavit in reply that she will take care and caution in future not to disobey or disrespect any order of the Honourable Court. Learned Counsel, on instructions orally submitted that Smt. Rajnur worked in the Education Department for approximately 20 years. As respondent no.2 Smt. Rajnur, who is personally present in this Court, expressed her unconditional apology and undertaking is also given to the Court that in future she will take care and caution to comply the orders of the Court, we accept the unconditional apology and statement made to this Court. As the apology and the statement of respondent no.2 is accepted, the contempt is purged and the petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶23

(PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶24

amj

¶25

Digitally signed Anant by Anant Manohar Joshi Manohar Date: 2018.10.08 Joshi 14:18:00 +0530

The Retgistrar Judicial High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Retgistrar Judicial High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Mehmood Khan Anwar Khan Pathan and Another

Shubham Vijaysing Patil Vs L K Kshirsagar

Sanjay Rambhau Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nasik Vs Dadasaheb Rawal Shindkheda Taluka Dudh Utpadak Sangh, Dondaicha

The Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Nashik Vs Shri Arihant Naari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Dhule

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Nitiraj Engineers Pvt. Ltd.