FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.276 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6304 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 This contempt petition alleges willful disobedience of the order dated 16th July, 2010 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. This contempt petition was heard by this Court and notices were issued to the respondents on 26th August, 2010. 3 In pursuant to the notice, the respondent No.3 Shivaji s/o Baburao Zanzan, Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad has filed affidavit- in-reply. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that on the said day at about 11.45 p.m. the mobile tower of present petitioner at Hotel Shell, Railway Station Road was sealed by the respondent in ignorance and unawareness of the said order. It was not the intention only to harass present petitioner but it was routine procedure and on 17.07.2010 the respondent had already sealed the tower of Essar Company at Bhagyanagar and on 18.07.2010 at 4.00 p.m. the tower at Yeshvantrao Chavan High School N-6/ CIDCO and at 5.00 p.m. the Tower of Reliance at Katkat gate were sealed. In para 5 of the affidavit, it is further stated that the petitioner herein was present at the time of sealing of his tower on 18.07.2010 at about 11.45 p.m. however, he has not intimated the said order passed by this Court to the respondent. 4 In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, further statement is made that after the respondent No.3 came to know about the order passed by this Court on 19th July, 2010, the seal of the present petitioner, which was affixed by the present respondent in ignorance of the letter of the advocate of petitioner has been removed. The respondent has also drawn panchanama to that effect about removing of the seal of the tower. The petitioner was himself present at the time of removing of seal and he has also signed on the panchanama. In para 2 the respondent No.3 has tendered unconditional apology for inconvenience caused for the act. 5 Taking into consideration the statement in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that seal of Indus tower which was affixed by the respondent has been removed and in the light of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent No.3 for causing inconvenience due to his action, no further adjudication of this contempt petition is contemplated. Since the respondent No.3 has satisfactorily explained the circumstances under which the tower of the petitioner was sealed and subsequently, it was removed, in my opinion, there is no willful disobedience or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent No.3 to violate the order passed by this Court. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 11.10.2010. PLK/*