Dismissed

Sushant Mohan Purandare v. Collector of Pune

Bombay HC11 Feb 2020CP/176/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A self-contained contempt petition limited to disposal of previous directions regarding land acquisition applications presented by the petitioner to the Collector. The petition recorded the Collector failure to comply with orders within the stipulated period and sought an extension to take decision. The Court held rejected the request for further extension and directed the Collector to take a deci

What did the court decide?

Request for further extension of time rejected. Collector directed to take decision and implement orders on or before 31st May, 2020.

Sushant Mohan Purandare Vs Collector of Pune — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/4

¶2

4.cpst.19536.2019.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (STAMP) NO.19536 OF 2019

¶4

Sushant Mohan Purandare Versus Naval Kishore Ram, Collector of Pune

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rahul Kadam for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP a/w Ms P.N. Diwan, AGP for the RespondentState.

¶8

CORAM : A. A. SAYED & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 11^th February, 2020

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

The Contempt Petition alleges breach of the order dated 8^th January, 2019 in Writ Petition No. 14040 of 2018. The said order reads as follows:

¶11

“1. The Writ Petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to the Collector to take decision in respect of the two applications presented by the Petitioner on 24.03.2016 and 02.05.2017 respectively as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from today and it is accordingly directed. The Petitioner undertakes to co-operate Respondent Authority in fnal disposal of the applications.

¶12

In view of the directions as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The Petitioner shall cause appearance before the Collector on 16.01.2019 and as such no separate notice requiring his presence before the Collector is necessary.”

1/4

AKN

2/4

4.cpst.19536.2019.doc

¶17

Since no decision was taken within the stipulated period of 8 weeks, a Civil Application was fled being Civil Application No. 819 of 2019 seeking extension of time to take the decision. The said Civil Application came to be allowed by on 5^th April, 2019. The order dated 5^th April, 2019 reads as follows:

¶18

“. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the applicant. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner who has opposed this application. Considering the averments made in paragraph-3 of the application, extension of time as prayed will have to be granted. Accordingly, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No further extension will be granted.”

¶19

Notwithstanding the extension granted by the aforesaid order and the observation of the Court that no further extension will be granted, the decision was not taken by the Collector, Pune. A 2^nd Civil Application was then fled being Civil Application No. 1874 of 2019 seeking extension of further period of four months from 05.07.2019 to fnally comply and implement the directions issued by this Court vide orders dated 8^th January, 2019 and 5^th April, 2019. The period of four months as sought in the Civil Application has also expired.

¶20

Learned AGP now has now placed on record a copy of the

2/4

AKN

3/4

4.cpst.19536.2019.doc

¶25

letter dated 11^th February, 2020 of the Desk Ofcer, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, seeking further extension of six months.

¶26

We are not at all happy with the manner in which the Collector has conducted himself in the matter. It appears that the orders of this Court are being taken very casually. Despite the extension of time granted by the Court in the 1^st Civil Application extending the time and making it clear that no further time will be granted, the decision has not been taken. Instead of complying the orders dated 8^th January, 2019 and 5^th April, 2019, a 2^nd Civil Application No. 1874 of 2019 was taken out for extension of a further period of four months, which period has also expired.

¶27

In the circumstances, we reject the request of the Collector seeking further extension of six months to take decision and implement the orders dated 8^th January, 2020 and 5^th April, 2019. We direct the Collector, Pune, to take the decision and implement the orders dated 8^th January, 2020 and 5^th April, 2019 on or before 31^st May, 2020. If the decision is not taken and the orders dated 8^th January, 2019 and 5^th April, 2019 remain uncomplied, the Court would be inclined to take a serious view of the matter.

3/4

AKN

4/4

4.cpst.19536.2019.doc

¶32

We dispose of the Contempt Petition.

¶33

List the Contempt Petition ‘for direction’ for reporting compliance on 9^th June, 2020. It is made clear that in the event the orders dated 8^th January, 2020 and and 5^th April, 2019 are not complied with, the Contempt Petitioners shall be entitled to seek revival of the Contempt Petition.

¶34

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

¶35

4/4

¶36

AKN

Sushant Mohan Purandare v. Collector of Pune

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushant Mohan Purandare v. Collector of Pune

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

Shri. Narayan Gangaram Tejam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra , Secetary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Laxman Narayan Salekar (J.F.M.) and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manohar Ganesh Patil Vs Managing Director City Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Pramila Chandrakant Tapkir and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

The Collector, Pune and Ors. Vs Sushant Mohan Purandare

Shri. Kisan Vittoba Parkhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.