Sandesh Bankatrao Vispute vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13066 Bom

                                                                     cp647.22
                                        1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  CONTEMPT PETITION NO.647 OF 2022
                                 IN
                    WRIT PETITION NO.2819 OF 2006


 Shri Sandesh S/o Bankatrao Vispute
                                                        ...PETITIONER
        VERSUS

 The State of Maharashtra
 and others.
                                                        ...RESPONDENTS

                  ...
      Mr.Hemraj P. Kshirsagar Advocate for Petitioner.
      Mr.R.D. Sanap, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 - State.
                  ...

                CORAM: SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                       ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

                 DATE :        15th DECEMBER, 2022

 ORDER :

1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the interim order that was passed in Writ Petition No.2819 of 2006 dated 24th April 2006, thereafter order and Judgment dated 4th October 2018. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the interim order dated 24th April 2006 has not been complied with. However, in view of Para Nos.4 and 6 in the order dated 4th October 2018, there is some confusion and therefore, perusal of the record of the said Writ Petition may give us further clue. Further, it appears that once again the present petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.5047 of

cp647.22

2022 and by order dated 6th September 2022, this Court has taken note of the earlier decisions in Writ Petition No.2819 of 2006 and it is also observed that since the petitioner had assailed the letter dated 12th July 2005 in Writ Petition No.2819 of 2006, he cannot repeat the same prayer by filing Writ Petition in 2022. The Petition was, therefore, not entertained to the extent of prayer clause 'C' thereunder and taking note of each and every prayer in the said Writ Petition No.5047 of 2022, the entire Petition was dismissed.

2. Under such circumstances, unless the things are clarified of which even the clarification cannot be sought on the basis of the record available with this Court, there is no question of issuing notice to the respondents.

3. Office to tag the record and proceedings of Writ Petition No.2819 of 2006 as well as Writ Petition No.5047 of 2022, with the present Writ Petition.

4. Place the matter for further consideration on 17 th January 2023.

 [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE]                 [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
      JUDGE                                     JUDGE

 asb/DEC22