abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1773 OF 2007 Balkrishna Namdeo Katkade .. Petitioner V/s Maharashtra State Road Transport & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Darpana Nagarkar i/b Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Hegde with Mr.C.M. Kokesh i/b Hegde & Associates for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD JUNE 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner prays for an action in contempt against the respondents for breach of the order dated 19th November 2007 passed the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1773 of 2007. 3. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent - 2 - no.1 and has ceased to be in service with effect from 31st May 2008. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner retired or was dismissed on 31st May 2008. That, however, is not relevant for the decision of this petition. 4. The petitioner, while he was in service, was transferred out of Bombay but was permitted to retain the residential accommodation for some time. By a letter dated 11th May 2007, the respondents informed the petitioner that penal rent of Rs.12,269/- p.m. would be recovered from him for occupation of the quarter with effect from 28th April 2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said communication dated 11th May 2007 directing recovery of penal rent an that too with retrospective effect by filing Writ Petition No.1773 of 2007. The writ petition was partly allowed only on the ground that order/communication dated 11th May 2007 was passed without following the principles of natural justice. The court however did not set aside the order/communication dated 11th May 2007. Operative part of the order of the court reads thus: "Be that as it may in these circumstances, we dispose of the petition with directions that the respondent in the present writ petition shall serve a notice upon the petitioner in respect of - 3 - the penal rent with retrospective effect from 28/4/2006 till the passing of the order on 11th May 2007 is concerned. The petitioner may file a reply to such notice and the respondents to take a decision as expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than 8 weeks from the date of passing this order. As regards the contention that the order is discriminatory as well as the contentions regarding the rule under which the penal rent is calculated, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach before the revisional authority within one week from today which thereupon shall be decided by the respondents in the same manner as mentioned above. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms." 5. According to the petitioner, despite this order, the respondents have continued to recover the penal rent by deducting the same from his salary and thereby may have committed contempt of court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the respondents were directed to take a decision expeditiously within 8 weeks, the decision was not taken within 8 weeks and thereby also the respondents have committed contempt. - 4 - 6. It may be noted that while deciding the writ petition in part, the Division Bench did not set aside the communication dated 11th May 2007 directing recovery of the penal rent. Having held that the said communication should have been issued after hearing the petitioner, the Division Bench only directed the respondents to give hearing to the petitioner. The communication dated 11th May 2007 was neither set aside nor was it stayed pending further decision to be taken by the respondents. It therefore cannot be said that the respondents have violated the order dated 11th May 2007 by recovering the penal rent from the salary of the petitioner. 7. As regards the contention that the respondents did not decide afresh the matter, the respondents have filed affidavit in reply dated 14th May 2008 denying the allegations. In para 5 of the said affidavit, the respondents have stated that in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 19th November 2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29th December 2007 and after hearing the petitioner, an order was passed on 29th February 2008 confirming the recovery of the penal rent. If the petitioner was in any way aggrieved by the said order dated 29th February 2008, it was open for him to challenge the said order before an - 5 - appropriate forum. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has in fact challenged the order dated 29th February 2008 before this court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.542 of 2008. No doubt, there is a delay of about 5 or 6 weeks in deciding the matter afresh. However, I am satisfied that it was not intentional and there is no intentional breach of the order. 8. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed intentional breach of the order of the Division Bench dated 19th November 2007. In view of this, there is no merit in the contempt petition which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)