Contempt Peptition No. 12 of 1993. Case: Sheshrao Manikraoji Warhade Vs Rajaram Bapu Patil Shikshan Sanstha. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Contempt Peptition No. 12 of 1993 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: A. P. Deshpande, Advs. and For Respondents: Parsodkar, Advs. |
| Judges | B. U. Wahane, J. |
| Issue | Contempt of Courts Act (70 of 1971) - Sections 10, 12 |
| Citation | 1994 CriLJ 3461 |
| Judgement Date | February 23, 1994 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
My brother Shri Justice S. G. Mutalik, issued rule on 17-2-1993 against the contemners including the Education Officer and the State of Maharashtra, calling upon them to show cause why the action should not be taken against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, as the contemners 1, 2 and 3 i.e. the President, Secretary and Head Master intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned School Tribunal, Nagpur on 20-11-1990.
-
The facts arose for initiation of the instant contempt proceedings, in brief, are as follows;
According to the petitioner, he was appointed as P.T.I. on 25-6-1986 by the Management known as Rajaram Bapu Patil Shikshan Sansthan which runs Vinayakrao Wankhede Vidyalaya, Ubali, Dist. Nagpur. On the contrary, according to the contemners 1, 2 and 3, the petitioner was appointed on 24-6-1987. To substantiate the averments, the contemners 1, 2 and 3 filed a copy of the appointment order dated 24-6-1987 as document No. 3. Admittedly, the said Sanstha was conducting the classes of 8th, 9th and 10th standards. The petitioner was appointed as a P.T.I. There was only one post of P.T.I. in the school. Besides the educational qualification required for the post of P.T.I., the petitioner is B. Com.
-
The service of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 31-3-1990 with effect from 30-4-1990. The Petitioner preferred No. STN/74 of 90. However, no stay was granted to the petitioner staying operation and execution of the order of termination. Notice was issued to the respondents. Ultimately, the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, passed order on 20-11-1990. In para No. 1 of the order itself, the learned School Tribunal specified that;
"In spite of sufficient time granted to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to file reply on stay application, the respondents did not file written statement and reply with documents".
After hearing the appellant/petitioner, as it was transpired that in his place nobody was appointed and he being the fully qualified for appointment as P.T.I. and that too in clear and permanent vacancy, the termination was stayed and the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to permit the appellant to join his duties, and to discharge his duties and also to pay him emoluments with effect from 1-5-1990 and shall pay him his salary regularly. According to the petitioner, at the time of his termination, he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 1905/- and till the date of filing of the instant contempt petition, the petitioner was entitled to receive the arrears of his salary to the tune of Rs. 64,470/-.
-
Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the contemners 1 to 3 specifically submitted that the contemners have filed reply as also written statement on merits on 27-11-1990. The contemners specifically prayed in the reply to the application for stay, to vacate the stay granted by the learned School Tribunal on 20-11-1990. However, admittedly till this date neither there is any order passed on the application filed by the contemners to vacate the stay nor the appeal is decided on merit. It is stated by the learned counsel for the contemners that for about more than 11/2 years, there was no Presiding Officer to attend the work of the School Tribunal. Therefore according to Shri Parsodkar, the learned counsel for the contemners that the order dtd. 20-11-1990 being an ex parte order, the contempt proceeding itself is unwarranted in view of the application for vacation of stay is not decided, and, therefore, the proceedings be dropped.
Reliance has been placed on a case of State of J and K v. Mohd. Yaqoobkhan, (1992) 4 SSC 167:
It needs mention that during the non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the School Tribunal, Nagpur for about more than 1 1/2 years why the Management/respondents kept mum and did not prefer writ petition in this Court to get the operation and execution of the stay granted by the School Tribunal stayed as is done by other Managements. This Court granted them temporary relief. It is fairly admitted by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial