Dismissed

Jijabhau D. Devram Burud v. Rajesh Deshmukh, the Collector

Bombay HC3 Jan 2024CP/597/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition involving arraignment for failure to comply with a previous order directing appearance before a Deputy Collector and submission of documents, the Division Bench examined the averments and affidavits. No case was made out for contempt as the petitioners failed to discharge their obligations. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as thoroughly misconceived and an abuse of

What did the court decide?

Contempt Petition dismissed. No costs imposed.

Jijabhau D. Devram Burud Vs Rajesh Deshmukh, the Collector — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9 CP597-22.DOC

¶2

Mohite

¶3

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2024.01.06 13:21:52 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 597 OF 2022

¶6

Jijabhau D. @ Devram Burud & Ors. … Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Dr.Rajesh Deshmukh & Ors. …Respondents

¶9

None for the Petitioners

¶10

Later on:

¶11

Mr.Ajinkya Udane i/b Mr.Suryajeet P. Chavan for the Petitioners Mrs.P.J.Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State

¶12

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 3 January, 2024

¶13

P.C.

¶14

None for the Petitioners. Dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶15

Later on, the learned counsel for the Petitioners appeared in the second session and at his request, the proceedings are restored to the file of this Court.

¶16

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶17

The contempt as alleged in this Petition, is of an Order dated 5^th November 2019, whereby this Court had disposed of a batch of Petitions, in which the Petitioners’ case was one of the Writ Petitions, being Writ Petition (St.) No.16096 of 2019. The Division Bench disposed of the said Petition in terms of the directions as stated in paragraphs 2(i) and 2(vi).

¶18

We find from such directions that there was a positive obligation on the part of the Petitioners, as set out in direction (ii), which is to the effect that the Petitioners were required to appear before the Deputy Collector

¶19

Page 1 of 2 3 January, 2024

¶20

9 CP597-22.DOC

¶21

(Resettlement), Pune on 28^th January, 2019 and produce necessary documents along with their representation claiming benefits. It was observed that, in the event of any request being made by the Petitioners for grant of time to enable the Petitioners to furnish documents, it would be open for the Deputy Collector to grant further time after considering their Representations, together with the necessary documents.

¶22

Considering such directions of this Court, we do not find any averments in the Contempt Petition that the Petitioners had discharged their obligations as directed by Court. Thus, in our opinion, per se the present Contempt Petition appears to be an abuse of the process of law.

¶23

We are quite pained to note that reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents by Mr.Ajay More Additional Collector, Pune was required to be filed responding to such untenable petition.

¶24

Be that as it may, in paragraph 4, the deponent has stated that the District Rehabilitation Officer had issued notice to the Petitioners on 24^th May, 2022 to remain present for a hearing on 6^th June, 2022 and submit the required documents to examine and decide their Application. The Petitioners had sought extension of time to submit the documents. However, the Petitioners never submitted the documents, and, for such reasons the petitioners’ application was not decided.

¶25

In the above circumstances, in our opinion, no case to proceed in the contempt jurisdiction is made out by the Petitioner.

¶26

Contempt Petition is thoroughly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed. We refrain from imposing costs.

¶27

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)

¶28

(G. S. KULKARNI , J.)

¶29

Page 2 of 2 3 January, 2024

Jijabhau D. Devram Burud v. Rajesh Deshmukh, the Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijabhau D. Devram Burud v. Rajesh Deshmukh, the Collector

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

Ramesh Aritmal Shivnani Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ascension Mercantile Private Limited (Formerly Known as Murali Agro Products Limited) Vs the Union of India through Department Revenue and 5 Ors.

Tech Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Authorized Reprsentative Vs State of Maharrashtra Thr the Secretary Ministry of Finance and Ors.

Shri. Nana Sahadu Dhandre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajwani Infrastructure Private Limited Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Jagdish Devichand Chavan Vs the Dy Regional Transport Officer and Ors.