Shri.Mahajan Sunil Doulat v. Mr.Vinayak M.Shirke & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Jan 2005
- Bench
- B H MARLAPALLE
Provisions considered
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 2(b)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Hence, the contempt petition is rejected. At the same time, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to resort to an appropriate remedy for recovery of his salary. [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]
Judgment
Shri. Mahajan Sunil Doulat ..Petitioner Vs. Mr.Vinayak M.Shirke and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.N.R.Bubna for petitioner Mr.A.H.Palekar A.G.P. for Respondent no.4 Shri.V.A.Kohir for Respondent nos.1 to 3 .... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : JANUARY 27,2005 DATE : JANUARY 27,2005 DATE : JANUARY 27,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation made in this petition is that the order passed by the Grievance Committee constituted by the State Government under the Scheme framed for appointment of Shikshan Sevaks, has not been implemented. Whether the Grievance Committee is the Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is the issue raised by the respondent in the affidavit filed in reply. The Scheme of Shikshan Sevaks is by way of Government Resolution and that the Grievance Committee is established under the said Scheme. If the order passed by the Grievance Committee has not been obeyed, the Shikshan Sevaks would be at the most -2- treated on duty and therefore, appropriate remedy for recovery of salary is not barred. The learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Committee has the trappings of a Court. The Committee is not Forum/Tribunal established under any Statute.
It would not be therefore, safe at this stage, to entertain the contempt petition when the Grievance Committee cannot be held to be a Court.
Hence, the contempt petition is rejected. At the same time, it is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to resort to an appropriate remedy for recovery of his salary.
[ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 2(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 27 Jan 2005. The bench was B H MARLAPALLE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.