SANGITA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Coming to the merits of the matter, we find that this petition now would require final hearing. Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) As per the order passed on 11th August, 2021, respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur was required to remain personally present before the Court. Her personal presence was to take effect on 30th November, 2021 but, by seeking circulation of this matter, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur got the hearing preponed to this day, the 29th day of November, 2021. If the preponement of the date of hearing was obtained, it only meant that the personal presence of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chandrapur was also prepared and it would take effect on 29th November, 2021. However, Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur is absent. But, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Zilla Parishad Chandrapur is present. There is thus non-compliance with the order passed on 16th November, 2021.