Disposed

Sunil Govind Dhake and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Dec 2019CP/376/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the contempt petition noting partial compliance by the respondent. While an apology was accepted, the court condemned the State authority's lack of serious enforcement attitude, where a mere communication was treated as sufficient of duty fulfillment.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with caution that State authorities must take appropriate steps seriously without relying on mere communications.

Sunil Govind Dhake and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

CP-376-2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.376 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9357 OF 2016

¶6

Sunil Govind Dhake and ors.

¶7

.. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Shri R.A. Rajiv, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

Mr Pramod Gaikwad, Advocate h/f Mr A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioners Mr K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent no.2

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 18.12.2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

In response to our order dated 20.11.2019, affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of respondent no.2, through Mr Pradeep Vyas, Principal Secretary, Public Health Department, Mumbai. Though the documents annexed to the affidavit-in-reply support the statement that the order of this Court is duly complied with and there is some delay and the delay was due to procedural formalities and an unconditional apology is tendered in the affidavit-in-reply, we are not satisfied with the approach of respondent no.2, for not providing any explanation as to what prevented respondent no.2 to instruct the office of the Government Pleader to take appropriate steps so as to file affidavit-inreply in this Court.

¶16

¶17

CP-376-2018

¶18

It seems that respondent no.2 was satisfied only with a communication forwarded to the office of the Government Pleader dated 3.8.2018, when respondent no.2 could have availed the assistance of the office of the Government Pleader through proper channel.

¶19

As now, the order of this Court is complied with, with a caution that henceforth the State authorities who are occupying high positions in the State and are parties to the contempt petitions shall take the contempt proceedings in more serious manner and to take appropriate steps without just forwarding some communication to the office of the Government Pleader, the Contempt Petition is disposed of.

¶20

( ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶21

( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶22

vvr

Sunil Govind Dhake and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Govind Dhake and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Chandrashekhar Rajeshwarrao Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Parmeshwar Gangaram Dhole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikant Nana Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Landge Vs Gajanan Susar and Others

Ramai Gas Service through Its Proprietor Sunita Pundlik Gajbhare Vs the Union of India and Others

Manoj Gas Agency through It Proprietor Ratnakar Kamaji Kamble Vs the Union of India and Others