Bombay High Court
Ajit Uttamrao Wagh vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 September, 2018
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale, Manish Pitale
195.18cp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.195 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9501 OF 2016
Dr. Ajit Uttamrao Wagh ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr A. G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner;
Mr S. S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondent/State;
Mr N. L. Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondent No.3
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
AND
MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 26th September, 2018
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner is before this Court with a grievance that the order of this Court, dated 4th December, 2017, passed in Writ Petition No.9501 of 2016 is not complied with and as there is willful disobedience of the said order, action be initiated against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. While hearing the Counsel and going through the order sheet, a sorry state of affairs is reflected. The notice was issued by this Court to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 on 16th April, 2018, making the same returnable ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2018 01:00:21 ::: 195.18cp (2) on 11th June, 2018. In spite of notice served on respondent Nos.3 and 4, none appeared for them, as such, the Court was left with no choice but to issue bailable warrant to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each by an order dated 11th June, 2018, returnable on 10th July, 2018.
3. On 10th July, 2018, while considering the Civil Application (St.) No.19558 of 2018, filed for recall of the order of issuance of bailable warrant, the Division Bench of this Court recorded the statement made before it on behalf of the applicant. The Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted before this Court that the applicant was unable to appear before this Court because of health problem. It was submitted before this Court by Mr Choudhari, learned Counsel on instructions of respondent No.3, who was present in the Court that within two weeks, the order passed in writ petition would be complied with. Accepting the statement made before this Court and certainly under an impression that the statement is bona fide with an intention for complying the order of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to recall the order dated 11th June, 2018 of issuance of bailable warrant and the application was disposed of.
4. Now, we state certain interesting facts. By an order dated 4th December, 2017, in Writ Petition No.9501 of 2016, this Court recorded the statement made on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 through the Counsel that they would make the payment of Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner as full ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2018 01:00:21 ::: 195.18cp (3) and final settlement of his monetary claims against respondent Nos.3 and 4 within a period of one week. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 stated before this Court that on instructions of Mr Ishwar Shinde, Administrative Officer of respondent No.3 and 4, an offer was made that respondent Nos.3 and 4 would make the payment of Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner as full and final settlement of his monetary claims. The Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner, who was also present in this Court, submitted before this Court that the petitioner is accepting the offer and would accept sum of Rs.6,50,000/- as full and final settlement towards his claim as raised in the petition. As such, the petition was disposed of with directions to respondent Nos.3 and 4 that they shall make the payment of Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of his claims raised in the petition. As the amount was not received by the petitioner, legal notice was issued on 11th January, 2017.
5. A document placed on record with contempt petition is a letter/communication, dated 10th December, 2017, under the signature of the President. In that letter, a reference is made to the petition and even the order dated 4th December, 2017, passed by this Court. It is further stated in the letter that the institute is running the college on permanent non-grant basis and there are no other means of income available with the institute and though the institute is facing financial constraints, the institute is respecting and honouring the order passed by this Court and also admits that the ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2018 01:00:21 ::: 195.18cp (4) institute is bound to pay the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the petitioner. It is then stated that the institute may require some time to make arrangement to raise this amount. Then it is stated that if possible, the institute may pay the amount in lump-sum or it may pay the same by way of installments. Interestingly enough, the communication concludes that the petitioner should inform his willingness either by way of telephonic conversation or by way of written communication. This communication is received by the petitioner on 18th January, 2018.
6. Learned Counsel Mr Choudhari submits before us that Mr Ishwar Shinde was no way concerned with the institute nor the person who attended this Court on 4th December, 2017, was the Administrative Officer of the institute. He then submits that an application is filed before this Court seeking review of the order passed by this Court, dated 4th December, 2017 and in the said review petition notices are issued. Thus, what Mr Choudhari submits before us is, the person who attended either this Court on 4th December, 2017 or instructed to the Counsel who was appearing for the institute was not genuine stake holder in the institute.
7. If this stand of the institute is considered on the backdrop of the statement made before this Court on 10th July, 2018 and we reiterated that on 10th July, 2018, the statement was made before this Court on instructions of respondent No.3, who was present in this Court, that the order passed in ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2018 01:00:21 ::: 195.18cp (5) writ petition would be complied with within two weeks and if this statement is considered, we are constrained to state that the attempt is nothing but a somersault. We have a reasonable belief to state that on one occasion, the party is approaching before this Court with an application to suit its purpose with a prayer seeking recall of the order of issuance of bailable warrant and in that process even a statement is made before this Court that the order of this Court would be complied with and then on the other hand, the party is taking a turn in 360 degrees and submitting before this Court that the statement made before this Court was not through the genuine stake holder of the institute.
8. As it is submitted before us that in review application notices are issued, we adjourn the petition after three weeks with these observations and we further state that the peculiar circumstances prompted us to observe these things, which otherwise we would not observe in a normal circumstance.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
sjk
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2018 01:00:21 :::