Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay High Court consisting of the division bench of Justice BP Dharmadhikari & Justice Revati Mohite Dere had dismissed a contempt petition filed by Dr. Manohar Rawate concluding that the efforts made by the petitioner to prove his case against the respondents were unsustainable.
Dr. Manohar Rawate had filed a petition seeking action against Justice (retd) Anoop Mohta & Justice GS Kulkarni alleging that both the judges had “forged an order” dated September 29,2016. The bench refused to issue notice to the respondents and rejected the petition.
The then Advocate General of Maharashtra, now Justice RB Deo was another respondent in the present matter who on October 27,2017 had refused to grant content to Dr. Rawate to file an application under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act and this order was challenged by the petitioner. The Attorney General & Union of India were the other respondents in the matter.
The petitioner had alleged that the respondents had forged annual confidential reports of 1988-1989 and had initially filed four writ petitions before the High Court. A criminal complaint was also filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondent.
On September 29, 2016 these petitions were heard by Justice Mohta & Justice Kulkarni, the respondents in the matter at hand. The bench had adjourned the petition sine die & gave liberty to the petitioner to move an application for hearing after the criminal proceeding were over. The petitioner in the contempt petition has alleged that he was not permitted to read out papers or composite synopsis. The petitioner alleged that he was not allowed to speak anything on the forged confidential reports while respondent's senior counsel SK Talsaniya was allowed to submit "anything".
After finishing his arguments, the petitioner sought a certificate to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Articles 132 and 135 of the Constitution, in case the order was to go against him.
The petitioner asked for a certificate to file an appeal before the the Supreme Court under Article 132 & 135 of the Constitution of India, if the order went against him. The request for certificate to move to the Hon’ble Apex was rejected stating, “.. as no substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution is either involved or arises for determination,”
The court observed that the petitioner did not refer to any decision date October 27,2016 which was passed by the Advocate General nor did he point out why it was not in accordance with law. The petitioner did not state arguments on why the proceeding under Section 15 be entertained.
The court observed-
“The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Dr. Vimal vs. The Delhi Administration but in above facts, we find reliance upon it as misconceived. The Petitioner could not demonstrate how the signed order which postponed consideration of challenge in the Writ petition till adjournment in relation to annual confidential reports is injurious to him.”
The court rejected the Criminal Contempt petition & refused to issue notice to the respondents. The court noted that there was other record except one dating September 29 was placed on record & hence, the present petition is said to be unsustainable.
86540
103860
630
114
59824