Dismissed

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Jul 2019CP/446/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court held that since the respondents had decided the petitioner's representation within the stipulated time, the earlier order was duly complied with. The petition was accordingly disposed of as no longer required.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was told to avail any available remedy to challenge the order dated 4th/7th June, 2019.

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

446.19cp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.446 OF 2019 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.818 OF 2019

¶6

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar, Age: 59 years, Occu: Retired, Nariman Nagar, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna ..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Ministry of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶9

Smt. Nima Arora, The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, Dist. Jalna

¶10

Shri. Uttam D. Chavhan, The Chief Accountant and Finance Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, Dist. Jalna ..RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr A. G. Ambetkar, Advocate for petitioner; Ms R. P. Gour, A.G.P. for respondent No.1

¶12

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND

¶13

R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 11th July, 2019

¶15

ORAL ORDER:

¶16

Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

446.19cp

¶18

(2)

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted before us that the petitioner was before this Court raising the grievance of noncompliance of the order dated 8^th February, 2019, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.818 of 2019, whereby the respondents-authorities were directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated period of twelve weeks from the date of order of this Court and the same was not decided and post filing of the petition, the authorities have decided the representation of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a copy of decision dated 4^th /7^th June, 2019. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. By assigning reasons, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna turned down the request made under the representation.

¶21

Needless to state that the order of this Court is duly complied with and the petitioner may avail the remedy, if available under the provisions of law to challenge the order of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, dated 4^th /7^th June, 2019, the petition is disposed of.

¶22

sjk

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Isaq Shaikh Jafar 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Keshavrao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ishwar Kailas Landge Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Others

Sangharsha Mahila Mandal Nazik Pangari through Its President L P Garbade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abc through Natural Guardian Father Rajendra Jagannath Aglave Vs the Union of India and Others

Ranjana Shivnarayan Nagre Alias Ranjana Ganpat Musale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balaji Vajinath Bellale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others