1 CP NO.288/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2011 In WRIT PETITION NO.6800/2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.8691/2010 W Dnyan Sandesh Sarwajanik Vachanalaya Raiwadi, Tal-Chakur, Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary, Vyankat s/o Sheshrao Kedar, Age 36 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Raiwadi, Tal-Chakur, Dist.Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shri D.S.Chavan, Director of Library ( M.S.) Nagar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 023. 2. Suhas s/o Ramchandra Rokade, Age 44 years, Occ: Assistant Director of Libraries, Aurangabad Region, Sahajivan Colony, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad 431 001. ...RESPONDENTS ... MR. Kedar R Balbhim, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, AGP for Respondent State. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 25, 2011 ... 2 CP NO.288/2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr. Kedar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. 2. The petitioner submits that an action of contempt be initiated against the respondents for willful disobedience of the judgment and order of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.6800/2009, dated 28th June, 2010 and 8691/2010, dated 10th March, 2011. 3. The petitioner, as a public trust, claims to be running a library at village Raiwadi, Tal Chakur,dist. Latur. In pursuance to Government policies, an application for recognition of the library was moved in the requisite format, however, since the application/representation was turned down, the action was questioned in Writ Petition No. 6800/2009 and by order dated 28th June, 2010, this Court issued directions to the respondents as reflected in paragraph No.5 therein, which reads as under: " It is true that the Authorities could have issued show cause notice and heard the Petitioner before cancelling the sanction. The order is passed practically a year before. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner is still running public library for the benefit of the 3 CP NO.288/2011 villagers. In the facts of the case, instead of setting aside the impugned order, we observe that the Petitioner is entitled to file fresh representation before the Authorities concerned. If the Authorities, after due enquiry, are satisfied that there is no other public library having Government sanction and grant in the said village, and the Petitioner is satisfying now the conditions under the Government policy, the order of cancellation be reviewed by recalling the same. This should be subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Authorities. The Petitioner is entitled to file such representation within FOUR WEEKS from today. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. " 4. Pursuant to the afore-mentioned order, the authorities of respondent claimed to have made enquiry and since the petitioner did not adhere to requisition of formats of proposal, the same could not be considered in the year 2010-2011, as per communication dated 23rd August, 2010. 5. The petitioner felt that the communication dated 23rd August, 2010, is in flagrant violation of the earlier directions of this Court and the orders are misinterpreted by the respondents, however, the subsequent Writ Petition No.8691/2010 was moved in which on 10th March, 2011, the Division Bench of this Court passed following order: 4 CP NO.288/2011 " Respondent no.1 shall consider the proposal of petitioner on merits in accordance with law. It is open to respondent no.1 to consider other proposal, if any, along with the petitioner's proposal and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that the concerned authorities, if necessary, shall grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. We also make it clear that the concerned authority, while deciding the proposal will do so in the light of the order dated 28.6.2010 passed by this Court earlier in Writ Petition No.6800/2009." 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision to reject the proposal of the petitioner is activated with malice and it is intentionally and willfully rejected in contravention to the orders of this Court in the two writ petitions. He repeats that there is contempt of orders of this Court twice in respect of refusal to grant permission to the petitioner and favouring such permission to Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya, for extraneous considerations. 7. Learned A.P.P. disputes that there could be any extraneous consideration in the affairs. He placed on record affidavit of the authority and comparative chart (page No.74) to address the deficiency noticed in the activities of the petitioner in conducting the library and the requisite standards, which were expected, were 5 CP NO.288/2011 not found to be maintained. The number of books, the subscribers of the petitioners library (Dnyan Sandesh Sarvajanik Wachanalaya) were compared with Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya and the Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya was given preference than the petitioner. 8. The allegations of extraneous consideration or intentional or willful passing of the order by respondent authorities, coined by the petitioner, cannot be addressed, while exercising contempt jurisdiction. This Court basically is required to consider in the bracket of violation of the orders of this Court, if any. Re-visiting the orders of this Court, referred above, I find that the respondent authorities have tried to complete the same in the procedural aspects. It may be giving a sense of camouflage in approach of the respondent, however, this Court is not called upon to criticize such conduct or reverse the said orders issued in favour of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Sarvajanik Vachanalaya, the contempt petition lacks merit, dismissed. Notices discharged. d ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/288-11cp