Bombay High Court
Dr. Shri Vijaykumar Bhaiyaji ... vs Shri. Ramesh Kashinath Aamle ... on 9 November, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) cp14.22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.14/2022 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.7862/2019 (D)
Dr. Shri Vijaykumar Bhaiyaji Khandate .vs. Shri Ramesh Kashinath Aamle, President
of Kai. Vithobaji Aamle Adiwasi Shikshan Sanstha, Brahmapuri and ors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Shilpa Giratkar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. S. S. Ghate, Advocate for respondent no.2.
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 09.11.2022
Heard Mrs. Giratkar, learned counsel for
petitioner, Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for respondent
no.1 and Mr.Ghate, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. Respondent no.2 is personally present before
this Court. We appreciate his presence before the Court.
We also appreciate the efforts made by respondent no.2
to sort out the whole issue pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court, in its order dated 06.08.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2
further submits that when the directions were issued by
this Court on 06.08.2021, the present respondent no.2
was not Registrar of the University and the present
respondent no.2 has taken over as Registrar of the
University on 22.07.2022. He further submits that
immediately thereafter when the judgment dated
(2) cp14.22
06.08.2021 was brought to the notice of the respondent
no.2, the respondent no.2 issued notice to the concerned
parties, but regretfully the petitioner turned defiant and
even informed the respondent no.2 that he has been
instructed by his Advocate, not to appear before the
Registrar. Mr. Ghate, learned counsel for respondent
no.2, has affirmed to this statement of respondent no.2
and submits that he even personally made telephone
calls to the petitioner and requested him to appear
before the Registrar but, the petitioner's answer was that
he would not do so and he was not required to attend.
4. Mrs. Giratkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that now the petitioner is ready to
appear before the respondent no.2.
5. Considering the rival submissions, we find
that sufficient opportunity has already been given to the
petitioner to appear before the Registrar and there is also
no denial from the petitioner that no such opportunity
was granted to him by the Registrar and also the learned
counsel for the Registrar. Personal presence of the
petitioner before the Registrar was necessary because the
direction issued was to the effect that Registrar of
Gondweana University, Gadchiroli would look into the
matter and work out the modalities, according to which
and the period for and within which the order dated
(3) cp14.22
16.03.2019 passed by the Grievances Redressal
Committee be implemented. This direction was issued,
in view of the fact that, certain portion of the claim of
the petitioner had prima facie become time barred and it
was not known, for which and to which amount, the bar
of limitation would apply. But, the petitioner has refused
to cooperate with the Registrar and, in a way, the
petitioner himself has, prima facie, committed contempt
of this Court.
6. We do not think that any further indulgence
to such a party can be given by this Court. Therefore, we
are not inclined to accept the proposal of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that now the petitioner would
appear before the Registrar of the University.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has vociferously argued that the petitioner is a
poor person and as per the directions issued by this
Court in the judgment in question, the petitioner had
made a representation to the then Registrar Mr. Anil
Chitale, to decide upon the modalities for
implementation of the order dated 16.03.2019 and that
was done by the petitioner within three months from the
date of the order and yet, nothing was done by the then
Registrar Mr. Chitale.
(4) cp14.22
8. The petitioner may have done so but we do
not understand as to why the petitioner deleted the
name of Mr. Anil Chitale, as party respondent, and
substituted in his place the present Registrar. The
present Registrar, as stated earlier, has taken every effort
to work out the matter. However, the petitioner
regretfully refused to cooperate with him. On the
contrary, the petitioner even informed that he would not
appear before him. Of course, that was the instruction
given to him by his advocate. The petitioner, as claimed,
may be a poor man but, we find him to be the person,
who is disrespectful of the authority. The petitioner
ought not to have deleted Mr.Anil Chitale as party
respondent to this petition because the contempt, if it
was there, had been done during his tenure. The present
Registrar has tried to salvage the situation by helping the
petitioner but, the petitioner has refused to obtain the
help of the present Registrar.
9. In such a situation, it is the only petitioner,
who has to blame himself. We find no merit in the
petition. The petition stands dismissed.
(Anil L. Pansare, J.) (Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
kahale Digitally signed byYOGESH
ARVIND KAHALE
Signing Date:10.11.2022
15:56
