:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 286 OF 2007 Shri Maheshkumar Mohansingh Pardeshi ...Petitioner. v. Shri Arun Laxman Janurkar & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Sachin Gite holding for M.S.Karnik , advs. for the Petitioner. Mr.D.A.Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 4th June, 2008. DATE: 4th June, 2008. DATE: 4th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The present petitioner had obtained a certificate that he belongs to Hindu Bhamata Pardeshi (Vimukta Jati) community. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee for validation of that certificate. By order dated 19-9-2005, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division passed an order and invalidated that caste certificate. That order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.8022 of 2005. On 13th December, 2005, Division Bench of this Court issued ’Rule’ and granted interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c). Effect of the grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) was to stay the effect and operation of the order :2: dated 19-9-2005. The petitioner filed this Contempt Petition contending that on the basis of the order dated 19-9-2005, F.I.R. was lodged with Ambad police station on 15-11-2005 and Crime No.365 of 2005 was registered under Section 10(1), (2) and Sections 11(1)(2) of the Maharashtra Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Caste Certificate Act, 2001 and under Sections 468 and 193 of the I.P.C. According to the petitioner in view of the filing of that case , he was required to move an application for anticipatory bail, which was granted to him on 29-12-2005. According to him, on the basis of charge-sheet filed before the C.J.M., Criminal Case No.612 of 2006 was registered against the petitioner and bailable warrant was issued. He received that order on 24-7-2007. He appeared before the Court on 2-8-2007 and bail was granted to him. According to him, filing of the criminal case and charge-sheet was in violation of the order passed by this Court on 13th December, 2005 staying the effect and operation of the order dated 19-9-2005. According to the petitioner, respondents, who are officers holding different posts in the Caste Scrutiny Committee have committed contempt of the Court. 3. Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent no.4, Madhukar Patole, Member-Secretary of the Caste Scrutiny Committee pointing out that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had lodged the F.I.R on 15-11-2005, i.e., long before the High Court had passed the order :3: staying the effect and operation of the order dated 19-9-2005. After the High Court had passed the order, the Scrutiny Committee had not taken any action against the petitioner, and, therefore, the respondents have not committed any contempt of the Court. In spite of this, he tendered unconditional apology, if this Court feels that any contempt has been committed by the respondents, even unknowingly. 4. In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had invalidated the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by order dated 19-9-2005. The Caste Scrutiny Committee had come to conclusion that the petitioner had submitted false and forged documents in support of this claim and, therefore, on 15-11-2005, F.I.R. came to be filed with Ambad police station, on the basis of which offence was registered. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the stay was granted to the effect of the order dated 19-9-2005 on 13th December, 2005. There is no dispute that the order dated 13th December, 2005 was communicated to the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the same day. However, there is nothing to show that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had taken any steps after 13th December, 2005 to give effect to their order dated 19-9-2005. The F.I.R. was already lodged on 15-11-2005 before this Court had passed the order. It can not be said that by lodging of the F.I.R. on 15-11-2005, it :4: committed contempt of this Court. In absence of any material to show that the Scrutiny Committee had taken any action after 13-12-2005, it can not be said that any contempt has been committed. If the concerned police officer filed charge-sheet before the C.J.M. after that date, the Caste Scrutiny Committee or its authorities can not be held responsible. There is nothing to show that the order of this Court was also communicated to the concerned police officer nor the concerned police officer is a party to this contempt petition. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts noted above, there is no substance in the present contempt petition, Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)