1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 214/2008 (Manoramabai Narayanrao Pawar VERSUS Ramdas N.Solanke & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-State. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for deliberately and willfully flouting the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 06.08.2008 restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the election to the post of Sarpanch. The petitioner had filed necessary proceedings under the Bombay Village Panchayat Act challenging her alleged resignation. The authorities had, however, found the resignation to be genuine and, therefore, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2 The petitioner questioned the orders passed by the authorities in writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.975/2008. The writ petition was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred a Letters patent appeal before this Court, which was numbered as Letters Patent Appeal no.233/2008. A civil application was also filed by the petitioner seeking stay to the elections for the post of Sarpanch of village Ghuikhed which was scheduled on 07.08.2008. This Court had, by an order dated 06.08.2008, directed the respondents not to declare the results of the elections which were scheduled to be declared on 07.08.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner took a steno copy of the order dated 06.08.2008 and tried to serve it on the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 Tahsildar was, however at Nagpur on 07.08.2008. The steno copy of the order 3 was, therefore, submitted by the petitioner in the Office of the Tahsildar. The election meeting was held at Ghuikhed on 07.08.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that certain members of the village panchayat who were supporting the petitioner had informed the respondent no.2, the Election Officer, that the High Court had granted stay to the declaration of the result of the election by an order dated 06.08.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of securing the knowledge of stay on 06.08.2008, the respondent no.2 deliberately and willfully declared the results of the election by disobeying the order dated 06.08.2008. According to the petitioner, both the respondents are guilty of contempt. After the notice before admission was issued by this Court on 08.12.2008, the respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed their affidavit-in-reply. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that the respondent no.1 was not in his Office on 07.08.2008 and was at 4 Nagpur. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that he was not aware of the order dated 06.08.2008 on 07.08.2008 also. The respondent no.1, therefore, sought for the dismissal of the contempt petition against the respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 also filed an affidavit- in-reply and stated that he was also not aware of the passing of the order dated 06.08.2008 till he received the notice in the contempt petition. It is stated by the respondent no.2 in the affidavit that the respondent no.2 was at Ghuikhed from 10.00 a.m. for conducting the elections and was not at his Chandur Railway Office. After receiving the notice in the contempt petition, he made the enquiry about the receipt or otherwise of the order passed by the High Court on 06.08.2008 in his Office and then he was informed by the Office that an entry was made in the Inward Register at 4.00 p.m. about the receipt of the order dated 06.08.2008. Thus, it is the case of the 5 respondent no.2 that the steno copy of the order dated 06.08.2008 was received in the Office at Chandur Railway at 4.00 p.m. and the same was forwarded to the Naib Tahsildar by the Inward Clerk at 4.20 p.m. The respondent no.2 also denied that some of the members had informed the respondent no.2 during the conduct of the election about the High Court's order dated 06.08.2008. The Inward clerk and the Naib Tahsildar had also filed separate affidavits to substantiate the fact that the Inward Clerk received the copy of the order at 4.00 p.m. and she had submitted the same to the Naib Tahsildar at 4.20 p.m. It is also stated by the Inward clerk as well as the Naib Tahsildar in their respective affidavits that the respondent no.2 had not attended the Office at Chandur Railway on 07.08.2008 as he was at Ghuikhed for performing his duty of holding the elections. They have stated that the order dated 06.08.2008 was not, therefore, conveyed to the respondent no.2 on 07.08.2008. 6 It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents were unaware of the passing of the order dated 06.08.2008 before the elections were declared at 2.00 p.m., on 07.08.2008. According to the respondents, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately and willfully flouted the orders passed by the High Court on 06.08.2008. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the affidavits filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 as also the Inward Clerk and the Naib Tahsildar. It appears from a combined reading of these documents as also the record which was produced before the Court for perusal, that the petitioner had not served a copy of the order dated 06.08.2008 on the respondent nos.1 and 2 before the declaration of the results at 2.00 p.m. on 07.08.2008. 7 In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately and willfully flouted the order passed by the High Court, restraining the respondents from declaring the result of the election till further orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents. The contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The notice issued to the respondents on 08.12.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE