Disposed

Nancy Gaikwad v. Shri Deepak Akade, Tehsildar and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Feb 2019CP/271/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged that the State failed to adhere to time limits set by an order in PIL No. 50 of 2012 regarding the Antyodaya Anna Yojna. The respondent, a Tahsildar, tendered an unconditional apology for the delay. The court held the action was not contemptuous and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Petition was disposed of accepting the unconditional apology.

Nancy Gaikwad Vs Shri Deepak Akade… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

CP 271.15 - 01.02.doc

¶2

¶3

JPP

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2015 IN

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 50 OF 2012

Nancy Gaikwad

… Petitioner.

V/s.

Deepak Akade and Another

¶11

... Respondents.

¶12

Ms. Dipika Sahani I/b. Gayatri Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶13

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶14

DATE : 01 FEBRUARY, 2019.

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that the Respondents have committed contempt of order passed by this Court in PIL No. 50 of 2012.

¶17

The Public Interest Litigations were filed in this Court in respect of Antyodaya Anna Yojna, a scheme for providing subsidized food. PIL No. 50 of 2012 was for the purpose of

¶18

2 18. CP 271.15 - 01.02.doc

¶19

ensuring access to food at subsidized rates. The Petitions were disposed of by an order dated 21 June 2013 issuing certain directions to the State in respect of finalization of the list and issuance of cards. The directions of this Court had given certain time limits. The Petitioner has made a grievance that the State has not adhered to this time limit and therefore has committed contempt of this Court.

¶20

Reply has been filed on behalf of the State by Mr. Deepak Akade, Tahsildar, Panvel, District – Raigad, who was the then Tahsildar of Khalapur, District – Raigad. He has tendered unconditional apology to this Court which is reiterated on his behalf by the learned Additional Government Pleader. He has placed on record that the order has been complied with however there was a delay and he has sought to give certain reasons for the delay.

¶21

We have perused the reply. From the reply it appears to us that though there was a delay in complying with the directions, the action of the Respondents does not appear to be contemptuous in nature. Furthermore, an unconditional apology has been tendered. Accepting this unconditional apology, we dispose of this Contempt Petition. We however caution the deponent to be more careful in future while complying with time bound directions issued by this Court.

¶22

N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

3 18. CP 271.15 - 01.02.doc

Nancy Gaikwad v. Shri Deepak Akade, Tehsildar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nancy Gaikwad v. Shri Deepak Akade, Tehsildar and Anr.

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

Anil Vasant Walunj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jindal Roadways Pvt. Ltd. Thru Authorised Personnel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Krishna Ramchandra Keni Allias Bhadari Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

Arzan Khambatta Vs Martin Borchert and 2 Ors.

Shri Shivaji Bhau Fule Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Reliance Industries Limited and Anr. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and Anr.