Contempt Petition No. 140 of 1992. Case: Arts and Commerce College. Pen, District Raigad Vs State of Maharashtra. Bombay High Court
|Case Number:||Contempt Petition No. 140 of 1992|
|Party Name:||Arts and Commerce College. Pen, District Raigad Vs State of Maharashtra|
|Counsel:||For Petitioner: Anil Y. Shakhare, Advs. and For Respondents: V.S. Gokhale, Asst. Govt. Pleader; S. Radhakrishnan with R.A. Rodrigues; K. P. Join, Advs.|
|Judges:||V. A. Mohta , J. and Pratap Singh , J.|
|Issue:||Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) - Sections 2(b), 12|
|Citation:||1994 CriLJ 172|
|Judgement Date:||September 07, 1993|
|Court:||Bombay High Court|
Ar ts and Science College, Pen, District Raigad, has filed this petition under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In a Writ Petition No. 3123 of 1991 filed by the said College, a Division Bench of this Court as far back as on 21.8.1991 directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders under S. 43(4) of the Maharashtra Act No. 22 of 1974 not. later than 30th November, 1991. Time limit expired, months rolled by but no order was passed and hence reminders dated 9-9-1991, 9-10-1991 and 27-2-1992 were issued, the last communication being a legal notice. All this evoked no response.
This contempt petition for disobedience of the order of High Court was filed on 8th July, 1992. The learned Asst.Govt. Pleader took time, even during pending of the petition no action was taken and hence rule was issued on 10th August, 1992. The matter was adjourned from time to time for nearly one year and the only indulgence shown to the Court was filing of an affidavit dated 9th July, 1993 by Shri S.R. Joshi, under Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Technical Education and Employment Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Bombay, justifying the inaction on the ground that there was a mistake in the date of communication from the Bombay University upon which the order was to be passed. No indication whatsoever about future course of action was indicated in the said affidavit.
The Bombay University filed an affidavit on 26th August, 1993 saying that the communication was forwarded on 20th February, 1991 and not on 6th June, 1991 as wrongly mentioned in the order of the High Court. On 27th August, 1993 the matter came up for hearing, no indication about compliance with the order was available even then and hence Shri Joshi was ordered to remain present personally in the Court on 3rd September, 1993. On 3rd September, 1993 he was present and was added as a respondent. At his request the matter was adjourned to this day. Shri Joshi has today filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology and saying that the order has been passed on 2nd September, 1993. The gist of his explanation for this long delay is this:
From 21st August, 1991 to 23rd September, 1992 one Shri Sharad Parab, and from 29th September, 1992 to 10th February, 1992, one Shri D. H. Tamore were the concerned officers and it was incumbent upon them to comply with the said order. On promotion he, i.e., Shri Joshi was transferred as Under Secretary to Government, Higher...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL