Disposed

Mah. Rajya Z P Bahuuddeshiya Arogya Seva Karmachari Madhyavarti Sanghatana through Its President Ra v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC22 Jul 2019CP/375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition filed for non-compliance of an earlier court order. The respondent filed an affidavit stating the petitioner's representation was decided by order dated 18.04.2018. The court disposed of the contempt petition on these facts and advised the petitioner to challenge the decision in a competent forum if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; petitioner advised to challenge the respondent's decision before a competent forum.

Mah. Rajya Z P Bahuuddeshiya Arogya Seva Karmachari… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

6-cp.375-18.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CONT. PETITION NO.375 OF 2018 IN WP/6237/2016

¶4

MAHARASHTRA RAJYA ZILLA PARISHAD BAHUUDDESHIYA AROGYA
SEVA KARMACHARI MADHYAVARTI SANGHATANA,
THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT – AJAY RAVINDRA CHAUDHARI

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

Mr. A.G.Talhar, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. R.P.Gaur, AGP for respondent

¶8

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE

¶9

AND

¶10

R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : JULY 22, 2019

¶11

PER COURT :-

¶12

Heard Mr.Talhar, learned Counsel for the

¶13

petitioner.

¶14

2.On a grievance that the order of this Court

¶15

dated 06.06.2017 in Writ Petition No.6237 of 2016 is

¶16

not complied with, the petitioner – Organisationhas
approached this Court.

¶17

3. On 12.06.2018, simple notice was issued to

¶18

the respondent, making it returnable on 07.08.2018.
In response to the notice, a detailed affidavit-in-
reply is filed by the respondent through Smt. Vinita

¶19

Ved Singal, Secretary, Woman and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In the affidavit-in-
reply, the deponent refers to the policy of the State
Government. It is then stated in the affidavit that

¶20

as per the directions of this Court, the
representation of the petitioner has been decided by
the respondent by order dated 18.04.2018. A copy of
the decision has been annexed to the affidavit.

¶21

4. Considering the fact that now, the

¶22

representation of the petitioner has been decided by
the respondent, the Contempt Petition stands disposed
of.

¶23

5.Needless to state that if the petitioner –

¶24

organisation feels aggrieved by the decision of the
respondent, it would be at liberty to challenge the

¶25

3 6-cp.375-18

¶26

same before a competent forum including judicial
forum.

¶27

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.]

¶28

kbp

Mah. Rajya Z P Bahuuddeshiya Arogya Seva Karmachari Madhyavarti Sanghatana through Its President Ra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mah. Rajya Z P Bahuuddeshiya Arogya Seva Karmachari Madhyavarti Sanghatana through Its President Ra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manorama Shahaji Koli Vs Charushila Deshmukh Sub Divisional Officer Kallamb

Mahendra Ajayraj Kothari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baliram Madhav Nawlekar Vs Indian Oil Corporation through Chairman and Others

Dhondiraj Devidas Goswami and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Alias Balasaheb Bhimrao Kadam and Another Vs Anandrao Sambhaji Kadam and Others

Rekha Anand Kshirsagar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another