Prashant S/O Jaideo Wasankar vs Manohar S/O Mahadeorao Medhekar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1358 Bom

Judgment                           1           13.wp.657.2022 judg.odt




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


           CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.657 OF 2022


      Prashant S/o. Jaideo Wasankar,
      Aged : 50 Yrs., Occ.: Nil,
      R/o. 58, Prasad Nagar, Near
      Jaytala, Nagpur                          .... PETITIONER


                            // VERSUS //


     1. Manohar S/o. Mahadeorao Medhekar,
      Aged about 69 Yrs., Occ. Retired,
      R/o. 35B, Tapovan Complex,
      Somalwada, Nagpur.

    2. State of Maharashtra,
     Through Superintendent of Jail,
     Central Prison, Nagpur                       .... RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________
     Shri G. S. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner
     Shri S. A. Ashirgade, APP for the State/respondent No.1
__________________________________________________________

                  CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

DATED : 8th FEBRUARY, 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

Judgment 2 13.wp.657.2022 judg.odt

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this writ petition, challenge is to the order dated

21.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, Nagpur, whereby the application for bail made by the

petitioner was rejected and he was send to jail till the completion of

the hearing of the application.

4. Without referring to the facts, this matter can be

disposed of, in view of the statement made by the learned Advocate

for the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out

that after filing of this petition, vide order dated 22.09.2022, this

Court by interim order released the petitioner on bail. Learned

Advocate submits that petitioner will not miss single date in the

proceeding before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal

Commission, Nagpur (For short 'the Commission') unless and until

he is specifically exempted on a particular date by the order of the

Commission. Learned Advocate submits that he is making this Judgment 3 13.wp.657.2022 judg.odt

statement on the basis of the instructions received from the

petitioner. This statement can be accepted, as an undertaking.

5. It is seen on perusal of the order that the petitioner

avoided to attend the proceeding & therefore, the proceeding got

delayed. In the facts and circumstances, the statement having been

accepted as an undertaking, would suffice the purpose of the

respondent No.1/applicant in execution proceeding pending before

the Commission. It is further seen on perusal of the record that the

respondent No.1, who is an applicant before the Commission, has

failed to appear before this court, despite service.

6. In the facts and circumstances, the statement is

accepted as an undertaking. In my view, the statement having been

accepted as an undertaking would serve the purpose. In view of

this, the writ petition is allowed.

Judgment 4 13.wp.657.2022 judg.odt

7. The order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the District

Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Nagpur is quashed and

set aside.

8. The petitioner is directed to attend the proceedings

before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,

Nagpur initiated at the behest of the respondent No.1, on every

date unless exempted by specific order.

9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

( G. A. SANAP, J.)

Namrata Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A.

High Court Nagpur Signing Date:09.02.2023 15:09