Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 28.4.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1726 of 2000. The order directed the State Government to decide a proposal submitted by the Zilla Parishad as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four months. The contempt petition was filed only against respondent no.3, Dilip Bund, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Satara. The court noted that the order was directed to the State Government, not to respondent no.3 personally. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Secretary stated that the proposal was subsequently approved and the benefit was extended to the petitioners. The court observed that the petitioners were not happy with the subsequent order passed by the State Government, which was the subject matter of challenge in another writ petition. The court held that compliance of the order had been done by the decision dated 4.6.2001, and therefore, nothing further remained in the contempt petition. The contempt petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Wilful Disobedience - Compliance After Stipulated Period - The court held that if the State Government did not consider the proposal within the stipulated period of four months, the respondent no.3 could not be hauled up for contempt. The subsequent approval and extension of benefit to the petitioners constituted compliance, and the contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 28.4.2000 directing the State Government to decide the proposal within four months.
Final Decision
The contempt petition is dismissed as compliance of the order has been done by the decision dated 4.6.2001 and nothing further remains in the petition.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires wilful disobedience
- compliance after stipulated period does not constitute contempt
- contempt petition not maintainable against state government for delay in deciding proposal
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 183
Contempt Petition No.191 of 2001 in Writ Petition No.1726 of 2000
Mr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Kishore Walunj for Petitioners, Mr. A.H. Palekar AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. M.H. Mehere for Respondent No.3
Arvind Dnyaneshwar Mali and Shamrao Bhiku Sasane
State of Maharashtra, The Secretary Gram Vikas Vibhag, Jal Sanchar Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and Dilip Bund, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Satara
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of court order
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to hold respondents guilty of contempt for not complying with the order dated 28.4.2000
Filing Reason
Alleged wilful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench on 28.4.2000 in W.P.No.1726 of 2000 directing the State Government to decide the proposal within four months
Previous Decisions
Order dated 28.4.2000 in W.P.No.1726 of 2000 directing the State Government to decide the proposal expeditiously and within four months
Issues
Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the court's order dated 28.4.2000
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners alleged that the order was wilfully disobeyed
Respondent no.3 argued that the order was directed to the State Government, not to him personally, and that the proposal was subsequently approved
Ratio Decidendi
If the State Government did not consider the proposal within the stipulated period of four months, the respondent no.3 could not be hauled up for contempt. Subsequent approval and extension of benefit to the petitioners constituted compliance, and the contempt petition was dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
It is alleged that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.4.2000 in W.P.No.1726 of 2000 was wilfully disobeyed and therefore, the respondents are guilty of contempt.
On the face of this order if the State Govt. did not consider the proposal within the stipulated period of four months, the respondent no.3 could not be hauled up for the contempt.
By this decision dated 4.6.2001, the compliance of the order passed by this Court is done and therefore, at this stage, nothing further remains in this contempt petition.
Procedural History
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passed an order on 28.4.2000 in W.P.No.1726 of 2000 directing the State Government to decide the proposal within four months. The petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.191 of 2001 alleging wilful disobedience. The court heard the matter and dismissed the contempt petition on 28.2.2005.
