Annu Pyarelal Sinsinwar vs Praful Patel, Honble ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6862 Bom

                                                                                           5-cp 117-21
Prajakta Vartak



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CONTEMPT PETITION NO.117 OF 2021

                  Annu Pyarelal Sinsinwar                                    ...Petitioner
                             vs.
                  Mr.Praful Patel, Hon'ble Administrator,
                  Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
                  Haveli and Daman and Diu & Ors.                            ...Respondents
                                                           .....

                  Ms.Varsha Palav with Mr.Ajinkya Palav and Mr.Anuj Tiwari i/b.
                  The Laureate for petitioner.
                  Mr.Hiten Venegavkar for Respondent/UT of Dadra & Nagar
                  Haveli.
                                               .....

                                               CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
                                                        G. S. KULKARNI, J.

                                               DATE :-       APRIL 29, 2021.
                  PC :

1. In compliance with our earlier order, an affidavit dated

April 27, 2021 has been filed on behalf of the alleged

contemnors/respondents.

2. We have read the affidavit. It appears that the alleged

contemnors/respondents having decided to approach the

Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution

challenging our judgment and order dated February 27, 2021,

did not comply with the directions contained therein

5-cp 117-21

immediately; however, upon receipt of the petition for contempt,

it has been decided by the alleged contemnors/respondents to

comply with the judgment and order dated February 27, 2021

and admit the petitioner in the 1st year of the MMBS course.

According to them, in the process, there has been some delay in

admitting the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in

such judgment and order, which is unintentional.

3. The explanation furnished by the alleged contemnors/

respondents for delayed compliance is accepted. Since it is not

in dispute at the bar that the petitioner has been admitted in

the medical course, we dispose of this petition for contempt

observing that the alleged contemnors/respondents shall be free

to pursue their remedy in accordance with law.

4. Since the petitioner might have lost out on attending

certain classes, a prayer has been made on her behalf by

Ms.Palav, learned counsel for suitable direction so that she does

not face any hurdle in future for shortage of attendance in

classes. Mr.Venegaonkar, learned counsel for the alleged

contemnors/respondents submits that appropriate measures

would be taken so that the petitioner is not deprived of requisite

5-cp 117-21

attendance. In this connection, he has submitted that extra

classes would be conducted for her to make up the deficiency.

5. The statement of Mr.Venegaonkar is accepted. No

further/other order is required to be passed.

6. There shall be no order for costs.

      (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)                           (CHIEF JUSTICE)