High Court
Legal Reasoning
2836.2023CP.odtIndia, drawing attention of this Court to willful disobedience of thejudgment and order dated 16th June, 2024 passed by this Court in WritPetition No.5946/2022 by respondent Nos.1 and 2.2.Writ Petition No.5946/2022 was filed by the petitioners seekingwrit of mandamus from this Court for directions to respondentNo.4/Tahsildar, Newasa to conclude the proceeding filed under Section32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(Hereinafter referred to as “MTAL Act” for brevity) within a stipulatedperiod of one month or such period as may be deemed appropriate bythis Court. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court on16th June, 2022. Vide order dated 16th June, 2022, the petition came tobe disposed of by issuing directions to respondent No.2 Tahsildar todecide R.T.S. Case No.1503/2015 filed under section 32-G of theMTAL Act on or before 30th August, 2022. Since the said proceedingwas not decided within the period stipulated, the petitioners have filedthe present contempt petition.3.Initially, the respondent No.1 was arrayed as sole respondent inthe petition since he was holding the office of Tahsildar at the relevanttime. Thereafter, vide order dated 30th October, 2023, leave wasgranted to replace the respondent sole by his successor in office.Accordingly, the respondent No.2 came to be arrayed as a partyrespondent to the petition. 3836.2023CP.odt4.On 22nd December, 2023, learned Additional GovernmentPleader had given an assurance to this Court on the basis ofcommunication dated 6th December, 2023 issued by the respondentNo.2 that the matter would be decided on merits. Thereafter, since thematter was not decided, format notice was issued to respondent No.2in Form No. I as per Rule 9 of Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay HighCourt Appellate Side Rules, 1960.5.Respondent No.1 has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 20thDecember, 2023. Respondent No.1 has offered explanation for thedelay caused in deciding the proceeding in paragraph 3 of the affidavitand has further tendered unconditional apology in paragraph 5 to 7 ofthe affidavit. It is stated that he was holding the office of Tahsildar,Newasa upto 13th March, 2023 and matter could not be decided inview of adjournments sought by the petitioners, who were seeking timefor production of documents and other evidence.6.Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 7th March,2024. Respondent No.2 has stated that he has assumed office ofTahsildar, Newasa on 13th March, 2023. He has tendered unconditionalapology for inconvenience caused to the Court in view of the delay indeciding the matter. It is stated that the matter has been finally decidedvide order dated 7th March, 2024, a copy whereof is annexed with the 4836.2023CP.odtaffidavit-in-reply as Exhibit `R-I’. The application filed by the petitionersunder Section 32-G is rejected by respondent No.2.7.Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that respondentNo.2 has completely disregarded the judgment dated 26th February,2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3091/2001, 3093/2001and 3094/2001. It is submitted that the order passed by respondentNo.2 is contrary to the said judgment and as such, respondent No.2should be held guilty of having committed contempt. He also statedthat the decision is not taken within the time frame stipulated by thisCourt vide order dated 16th June, 2022 passed in Writ PetitionNo.5946/2022.8.Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader hassubmitted that although there is some delay in deciding the matter, thedelay was not willful or deliberate. He further submits that ultimately,the matter has been decided as directed by this Court. He furthersubmits that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have tendered sincere andhonest apology for the delay caused. It is further submitted thatcorrectness or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2 cannot be adjudicated upon in the present Contempt Petition. In view ofthe aforesaid, he submits that the contempt proceeding be dropped bydismissing the petition. 5836.2023CP.odt9.Learned Advocate representing the petitioners has advancedsubmissions on the correctness of the order passed by respondentNo.2. He submitted that the order passed by respondent No.2 iscontrary to the judgment dated 26th February, 2015 passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition No.3091/2001 and the connected petitions andas such, the same is unsustainable.10.We are afraid that having regard to the scope of our jurisdictionunder section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article 215of the Constitution of India, we can not adjudicate upon thecorrectness or otherwise of the order passed by respondent No.2.Perusal of the order dated 16th June, 2022 in Writ PetitionNo.5946/2022 of which contempt is alleged merely directs theTahsildar, respondent No.4 in the said petition, to decide R.T.S. CaseNo.1503/2015 on its merits on or before 30th August, 2022. The saidmatter has now been decided by respondent No.2 vide order dated 7thMarch, 2024. The order passed by this Court in Writ PetitionNo.5946/2022 is thus complied with, although not within stipulatedperiod.11.As regards the delay, learned Advocate for the petitioners didraise a grievance about the same, however, the statements in theaffidavit-in-reply regarding delay caused on account of accommodation 6836.2023CP.odtsought by the petitioners for production of documents and evidencewas not specifically dealt with. No submissions were advanced todemonstrate that the statements with respect to delay in affidavit of therespondents are incorrect or contrary to record. Having considered therival submissions, we are of the opinion that although there is delay indeciding the matter, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have offeredacceptable explanation for the same. They have also tenderedunconditional apology for the delay caused. In such circumstances,we are inclined to accept the unconditional apology offered byrespondent Nos.1 and 2 for the delay caused in deciding the matter.12.In the light of aforesaid, the contempt petition is dismissed. Thecontempt notice issued by this Court against respondent No.1 standsdischarged.13.Needless to mention that it shall be open for the petitioners toavail such remedies as are available to them under law to assail theorder dated 7th March, 2024 passed by the Tahsildar.[R.W. JOSHI][SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga
Arguments
1836.2023CP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 836 OF 2023INWRIT PETITION NO. 5946 OF 20221.Bhausaheb @ Bhaskar S/o. Yadav KatoreAge : 71 years, Occ : Agril.,2.Tukaram Yadav KatoreAge : 61 years, Occ : Agril.,3.Gorakshanath Yadav KatoreAge : 60 years, Occ : Agril.,All Ro Dhangarwadi, Sonai,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.PETITIONERS-VERSUS-1.Rupeshkumar SuranaAge : Major, Occ : Service as Tahsildar,Amalner,Office at office of Tahasildar, Amalner,Tq. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.2.Sanjay BiradarAge : Major, Occ : Service as Tahasildar,Newasa,Office at office of Tahasildar, Newasa,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar.RESPONDENTS…Mr.S.V. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioners.Mr.A.R. Kale, AGP for the respondent/State....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &R.W. JOSHI, JJ.DATE :14 NOVEMBER, 2024.JUDGMENT (Per R.W. Joshi, J.):-1.The present contempt petition is filed under Section 12 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of