Dismissed

Pandurang Rama Gaikawad v. Prafulla Dnyandeo Waghmare and Another

Bombay HC20 Sept 2019CP/489/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition arising from PIL No. 3 of 2016, the Division Bench dismissed the matter at the threshold. Finding that police circulars and communications showed clear compliance with the earlier order, the court held the petition was based only on assumption and presumption, describing it as meritless.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed at the threshold.

Pandurang Rama Gaikawad Vs Prafulla Dnyandeo Waghmare and… — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(1)

¶2

CP-489.2019.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.489 OF 2019 IN

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2016

¶6

Pandurang Rama Gaikwad. Petitioner Versus

¶7

Prafulla Dnyandeo Waghmare and anr. Respondents

¶8

Mr. V.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & AVINASH.G. GHAROTE, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 20 September 2019.

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length.

¶13

On a assumption that there is non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 29.06.2017 in Public Interest Litigation No. 3 of 2016, the petition is filed and the submissions of the Counsel were on the same impression.

¶14

On perusal of the order dated 29.06.2017, a copy of which is placed on record at Exh-B, it clearly reveals that it is observed by the Division Bench of this Court that, “we decline to intervene in the impugned notification”. Thereafter the Division

¶15

Bench observed a word of caution. The petitioner himself has

¶16

(2)

¶17

CP-489.2019.odt

¶18

placed on record the Circular issued by the Special Inspector General of Police (Establishment) dated 29.12.2017 at Exh-D as well the Circular of Commandant, Special Reserve Police Force Bit No.12, Hingoli. Both these communications clearly show that these communications are issued referring to the order of this Court and the first Circular dated 29.12.2017 concludes with a clear request to all officers that the order of the High Court be followed. We also find that the Circular issued by the Commandant specifically refers to the order of this Court and reiterates the caution referred to in the order of Division Bench. Thus, we see no reason to treat the petition as a petition raising a ground of non-compliance of the order of this Court and in our clear opinion there is nothing which would prompt this Court to say that the act of the respondent Authority would call for any action to state it as contempt of the Court. The petition being thoroughly merit-less and based only on assumption and presumption, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

(AVINASH.G. GHAROTE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶20

vdd

Pandurang Rama Gaikawad v. Prafulla Dnyandeo Waghmare and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Rama Gaikawad v. Prafulla Dnyandeo Waghmare and Another

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

Swati Santosh Nhasade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Beed Jilha Us Tod Kamgar Vikas Mandal through Its President U M Karad Vs Aseem Gupta and Another

Khaja Bande Nawaz Educational and Socialwelfaresociety Thr Its Chairman Qazi Toufeeque Ahmed and an Vs Vandana Krihna Principal Secretary School Education Department

Manchak Paramsukh Kappe Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary

Prashant Surendrakumar Shrivastava Vs the Union of India and Others

Sakharam Sabhaji Thube Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others