Dismissed

Dagubai Kisan Gaikwad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Nov 2019CP/459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed a Contempt Petition alleging non-compliance of an interim order directing the Collector to decide a land representation. The court accepted that the decision was reached, subject to further challenge in a separate writ petition, and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition disposed of without further order as the impugned order was duly complied with.

Dagubai Kisan Gaikwad and Another Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.459 OF 2019 IN

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2945 OF 2019

¶4

1. Dagubai Kisan Gaikawad, Age : Major, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Sawalavihir (Bk.), Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar

¶5

2. Rambhau Bapurao Mate, Age : 69, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Nighoj, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Minister, Department of Revenue & Forest & Public Works Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶8

2. The District Collector, Collector Office, Ahmednagar through Rahul Divedi R/o Collector Office, Ahmednagar

¶9

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirdi, Sub-Divisional Office, Shirdi

¶10

4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Rahata, District Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS

¶11

Ms. Sakshi Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. Sanket S.
Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the respondents/State

¶12

¶13

CP459-2019

¶14

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

¶15

DATE :4th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

2.By order dated 1st March, 2019 passed in Writ

¶19

Petition No.2945 of 2019, the Division Bench of this
Court, considering the limited grievance raised in the
Writ Petition, directed respondent No.2 – District
Collector, Ahmednagar to decide the representation dated
25th October, 2018 expeditiously and within a stipulated
period of eight weeks from the date of this Court.

¶20

3.On a grievance raised before this Court that

¶21

the order of this Court dated 1st March, 2019 is not
complied with and the representation is still pending

¶22

with the Authority, simple notice was issued by order
dated 17th July, 2019 to respondent No.2 making the same
returnable on 28th August, 2019.

¶23

4.Mr. Sangle, learned A.G.P., on instructions,
appears for respondent No.2 and placed on record the
communication dated 27th August, 2019 addressed to the
petitioners alongwith the decision of the Authority.

¶24

¶25

CP459-2019

¶26

The documents are taken on record and marked as “X”
collectively for identification purpose.

¶27

5.Perusal of communication dated 27th August, 2019
and more particularly the order dated 26th August, 2019
passed by the Authority show that the parties were heard
and by assigning detailed reasons, the Authority has
arrived at a conclusion that the request made in the
representation for release of the land cannot be
granted.

¶28

6.As the Authority concerned has passed an order
and decision is taken on the representation submitted by
the petitioners, it can safely be said that the order of
this Court dated 1st March, 2019 is duly complied with,
though the decision is taken belatedly.

¶29

7.Mr. Sangle, learned A.G.P. submitted before

¶30

this Court that due to administrative difficulties and
as the Authority examined the record extensively, the
delay caused in taking decision is not intentional but
was for the bonafide reasons. As such, the delay caused
in taking decision may be condoned. Mr. Sangle, learned

¶31

A.G.P. further submitted, on instructions, that the
decision of the Authority is subject matter in Writ

¶32

4 CP459-2019

¶33

Petition No.11683 of 2019 filed by the very petitioners
who are the petitioners in the present Contempt Petition
and notice is also issued in the said Writ Petition on
24th September, 2019.

¶34

8.In view of the aforesaid facts and more
particularly as the order of this Court dated 1st March,
2019 is now duly complied with, we see no reason to pass
any further order in the Contempt Petition. The
Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

[ANIL S. KILOR][PRASANNA B. VARALE]
JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

npj/CP459-2019

Dagubai Kisan Gaikwad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dagubai Kisan Gaikwad and Another 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

Ajay Panditrao Nandre and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Venkat Ramchandra Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Vyankatrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Galib Shaikh Vahid and Others Vs Ashok Shirse and Another