ASHOKKUMAR LAXMIKANT DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this contempt petition, the applicants have alleged willful defiance and violation of oral order dtd. 7/12/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 23010 of 2022 annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. The directions contained in the said order are re- produced hereunder :-

(2.) Pursuant to such stand taken by the applicants, the co- ordinate Bench was pleased to issue notice on 13/3/2023 and in response thereto, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw appearing for the respondents has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent no. 4 - District Development Officer and has take a stand that the respondent authority was expected to decide representation dtd. 29/8/2022 made by the petitioner within time schedule by a reasoned order. This decision which was required to be taken has already been taken by the authority on 14/2/2023 which was already conveyed to the applicants and as such, there is no willful defiance of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in an order dtd. 7/12/2022. It has been submitted that if the applicants have any grievance about such decision, the same may be agitated in appropriate forum permissible in law. However, after considering the overall material on record, after close scrutiny the representation has been decided and as such, has requested to drop the contempt proceedings.

(3.) Having perused the directions which are issued as indicated in paragraph 6 of the order dtd. 7/12/2022 and having perused the relief clause contained in paragraph 5(A), we are of the opinion that since decision is already taken upon such representation, there appears to be substantial compliance and the circumstances which are stated in the affidavit-in-reply are sufficient enough to indicate that the representation which was directed to be decided is taken note of and a decision is taken and as such, we are of the opinion that looking to the scope contained in the present proceedings, as well propounded in catena of decisions, we are of the view that the present contempt proceedings does not deserve to be continued further.