Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KAZI EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MD KALIMODDIN MD MOINODDIN – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY WAGHMARE – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R.W. JOSHI, J.) :
1. The present contempt petition is filed alleging willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12627 of 2022.
2. The petitioner is a public trust, which is functioning in the field of education. The petitioner intended to start a college for studies in social work, which would impart education to students for pursuing courses of Bachelor of Social Work and Masters of Social Work. The petitioner had submitted an application for starting college to the Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance of the Government of Maharashtra in the month of April, 2022. The petitioner submits that all the concerned authorities had given positive recommendation for granting permission to the petitioner to start the college. However, the respondent in the writ petition did not decide the application as consequence of which the petitioner was constrained to file a petition, being Writ Petition No. 12627/2022 seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondent in the writ petition to take decision on the proposal of the petitioner for starting the said college. The said petition came to be decided vide o
The obligation to decide on a college application is a one-time duty, and failure to comply does not constitute a continuing wrong, making the contempt petition filed beyond the limitation period ina....
The court ruled that without explicit directives in judicial orders, contempt proceedings cannot be established, emphasizing that policy decisions by government cannot be mandated through contempt ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is to be scrupulously followed, and the powers under Article 215 of t....
Any contempt proceedings initiated must comply with the one-year limitation period stipulated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, barring exceptional circumstances.
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
