Criminal Application No. 95 of 2010 · Bombay High Court
Judgment
learned counsel for the respondents. In this application, the applicant has prayed for the reliefs as prayed in Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007. He also seeks direction to comply with the order of this court dated 6.2.2009. It appears that similar prayers were made by the applicant in Criminal Application 2 No.s479 of 2009 and 370 of 2009 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007. This Court, by order dated 27.1.2010, disposed of the application No.479 of
2009. The order dated 27.1.2010 reads thus; The Division Bench of this
1. Court has already disposed of Criminal Writ Petition No.2225 of 2007 by its order dated 6.2.2009. party-in-person The applicant submitted that the observations made in paras 3 and 4 of the said order have not been complied with by the Department, as the averments have not been taken into account by the Department as well as Union of India. It is required to be noted that if the Department has committed any contempt of court by violating the directions of the Court, the appropriate remedy would be to file substantive petition and the applicant cannot agitate his grievance by preferring this criminal application in a writ petition which was already disposed of. The applicant party-in-person 2. submitted that with a view to file substantive contempt petition, he is this criminal application. Criminal Application is disposed of with a liberty to the applicant to take out fresh proceedings if at all according to him, respondents have violated the directions given by this court in its order dated 6.2.2009.
pressing The applicant submits that in view of the 3 order dated 27.1.2010 he had filed a contempt petition, bearing Contempt Petition No.111 of 2010, in this court and the same has been dismissed. Keeping that in view and considering the order dated 27.1.10 passed in Criminal Application No.479 of 2009, in our opinion, the prayers made in this application cannot be entertained and disposed of as such. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) 4
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.