Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O Shri Warluji Uikey vs Shri Shyam Tagade, Principal ... on 21 June, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, G. A. Sanap
1
21-6-2022-cp-295-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Contempt Petition No.295 of 2021
In
Writ Petition No.5900 of 2015 (D)
Madhukar S/o Shri Warluji Uikey, Nagpur
Versus
Shri Shyam Tagade,
Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders
and Registrar's order
Shri S.S. Bhende, Advocate, holding for Shri S.P. Bhandarkar,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate, with Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & G.A. SANAP, JJ.
DATE : 21st JUNE, 2022
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The reply filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 shows that the
judgment and order passed by this Court on 19-12-2018 of which
contempt of Court is alleged, has been complied with in most part and
for remaining part, it is to be complied with.
3. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are personally present before this
Court and they are duly identified by their counsel.
4. Considering the fact that there is a substantial compliance for
most part and the compliance for remaining part is to be made and
also believing in the genuineness of the statements made in Para 6 of
21-6-2022-cp-295-2021.odt
the reply, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by
keeping this contempt petition pending any further insofar as the
respondent Nos.5 and 6 are concerned.
5. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are, therefore, discharged from
these contempt proceedings and the bailable warrants issued against
them, if not executed so far, stand recalled.
6. The bailable warrants were issued against the respondent
Nos.3 and 4. Out of these respondents, the respondent No.4-
Babasaheb Deshmukh, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Social
Welfare, Shraddhanand Peth, Nagpur, is personally present before this
Court. He has already tendered his apology in the reply filed by him
and he has also complied with the warrant issued against him even
before the warrant has been executed. The respondent No.4,
therefore, need not remain present before this Court on the next date.
7. This may not be so in respect of the respondent No.3-
Siddharth Gaikwad, Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Social Welfare, Shraddhanand Peth, Nagpur, who appears to have
deliberately avoided attending this Court, although it is stated that he
was personally present before this Court in the first half. None of the
Judges on this Bench personally know the respondent No.3 and,
therefore, it is not possible to accept the statement that he was
personally present before this Court. It may be added here that the
physical presence of the respondent No.3 in this Court in the first half
was not pointed out to us by anybody. In any case, it was his duty, as
a responsible officer of the State Government and responsible public
servant, to be vigilant in performance of his duties and one of his
duties was to defer to the command of law, the command having come
from this Court, initially in the nature of notice, which was disobeyed
21-6-2022-cp-295-2021.odt
by him and subsequently in the nature of bailable warrant, which was
also disobeyed by him. It appears to us that he only created a farce of
his physical presence in this Court without intending to remain
physically present in compliance with the directions issued by this
Court. When this matter was called out, we were informed that the
respondent No.3 went to attend some important meeting before the
Scheduled Castes Commission. We do not think that he would have
been in a position to attend the meeting before the Scheduled Castes
Commission in view of the fact that the bailable warrant was already
issued against him and it was about to be executed. Even then, the
respondent No.3 left the Court and went somewhere else. It appears
to us that when this Court expressed it's mind to issue non-bailable
warrant against the respondent No.3, somebody present on his behalf
in this Court hall informed him and as a result, the respondent No.3
now has appeared before us physically in great haste and frantic
manner. On his behalf, Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional
Government Pleader, tenders apology and assures that such conduct
will not be repeated by the respondent No.3 in future.
8. Given the proclivities, we are not inclined to believe in the
assurance given by the learned Additional Government Pleader on
behalf of the respondent No.3. But, at the same time, considering the
fact that the arrest of the respondent No.3 for not complying with the
directions of this Court may reflect adversely on his career, we are
willing to give him one chance to reform himself. Accordingly, the
request of the respondent No.3 for cancellation of bailable warrant
issued against him by this Court, which has not been executed so far,
is accepted and the bailable warrant so issued is hereby recalled,
subject to the condition that the respondent No.3 shall pay the costs of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), which shall be deposited by him
in the account of the Central Prison, Nagpur, for the purpose of
21-6-2022-cp-295-2021.odt
Library, within seven days from this date.
9. We direct the respondent No.3 to file on record the receipt of
the amount so deposited by him with the Jail Authorities on or before
the next date. We also direct him to remain personally present before
this Court on the next date.
10. Stand over to 4-7-2022 at 2.30 p.m. for further directions.
(G.A. SANAP, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Lanjewar
Digitally Signed By :P D
LANJEWAR
Signing Date:21.06.2022
17:26
