Disposed

Govind Poslya Gavit v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Jan 2020CP/695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Contempt Petition No. 695 of 2019, the Court considered whether the impugned order from a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner was complied with by the respondents, which resulted in the order renecing the proposal due to delay.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of; petitioner allowed to challenge authority's renecing order in competent forum.

Govind Poslya Gavit Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

CP-695-2019

¶3

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

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 695 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2288 OF 2018

Govind Poslya Gavit

..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra through Mr Manukumar Shriwastav, Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioner Mr S.G. Sangle, A.G.P. for respondents no.2 to 4

¶11

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

¶12

DATE : 2^nd January 2020

¶13

ORAL ORDER :

¶14

On a grievance that order of this Court dated 15.01.2019 in Writ Petition No.2288 of 2018 is not complied with, the present contempt petition is fled.

¶15

By order dated 17.10.2019, simple notice was issued to respondents no.2 and 3 only, making the same returnable on 2.1.2020. Mr Sangle, learned A.G.P. invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply by and on behalf of respondent no.3 - Dr. Ranendra Bandu Bharud, Collector, Nandurbar. The copies of the necessary documents are also placed on record, such as the application/proposal fled by the petitioner, the reports called for, the notifcations and the proclamation issued calling upon the obnections etc.

¶16

¶17

CP-695-2019

¶18

Mr Sangle, learned A.G.P. then invited our attention to the copy of the order placed on record at annexure ‘R-12’. By assigning certain reasons, the proposal is renected. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that there is delay in complying the order and the same is not intentional one, but the time required for making detail enquiry and calling information, the delay caused. An unconditional apology is tendered by the deponent.

¶19

Considering the fact that the order is passed on the proposal by assigning reasons, it can safely be said that the order of this Court is now duly complied with, the grievance of the petitioner no more survives. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is having any grievance against the order passed by the authority renecting the proposal, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in challenge to the order by approaching the competent forum.

¶20

5. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

( ANIL S. KILOR, J.) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶22

vvr

Govind Poslya Gavit v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Poslya Gavit 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

Shree Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Others

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Khulbhushan Chandanlal Jaiswal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Eknath Kolhe and Others Vs Nitin Karir and Others

Milind Bhimrao Gaikwad Vs the Principal Secretary and Others

Govind Poslya Gavit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others