:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1957 OF PETITION NO. 1957 OF PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2008 2008 2008 Aristotle Lancelot Joseph Rego. ... Petitioner. V/s. Dr. Kishor Mande & Ors. ... Respondents. WITH WITH WITH CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 81 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 81 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2008 Victor Dias & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Rajendra Pawar & Ors. ... Respondents. WITH WITH WITH NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 492 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 492 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO. 492 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 2208 OF 2008 Victor Dias & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Rajendra Pawar & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.C. Josheph, Petitioner present in person in Cont.Petition No.90/08. Mr. M.M. Vashi for the Petitioner in Cont.Petn. No.81/08. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 13TH 13TH 13TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Petitioner has filed the Contempt Petition alleging that the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Deputy :2: Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K-West Ward and the Deputy Registrar, G-South Ward are guilty of Civil Contempt and should be dealt with accordingly. The grievance of the Petitioner is that these Respondents have committed deliberate and willful disobedience by not complying with the order and direction of this Court dated 14th July 2008, for which acts, each one of them should be dealt with in accordance with the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Mr. Vashi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the order dated 14th July 2008 passed in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 1657 of 2008 instituted by the present Petitioner. It is stated that the Court accepted a statement of the Government Advocate. The statement was made on instructions. It states that the Registrar will look into the matter and conduct the necessary enquiry within 15 days from 14th July 2008. It is this statement which was accepted and the Writ Petition was disposed off. 3. However, it is contended that the proceedings were not concluded as directed. Instead, the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies directed the Deputy Registrar to dispose off the matter by conducting an enquiry. The grievance is that the direction is to the Registrar and not to any other Authority. Therefore, there was no question of any :3: confusion or error. There was no scope for contending that under the Maharashra Co-operative Societies Act the term "Registrar" includes several other Authorities and Officers and therefore, it was not necessary for the Registrar to himself conduct the enquiry. 4. All these contentions were raised on the last occasion and finding that the affidavits filed on behalf of all three Officers not accepting the mistake and error but trying to justify their acts, does not meet the requirement stipulated in law. This is not a case where the order was not correctly communicated to the Officers. The affidavits filed on behalf of these Officers earlier clearly show that the order was duly communicated to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State. It also states that the Application for Speaking to the Minutes was made on 24th July 2008 but the Court did not pass any order on the said application. Therefore, a bonafide mistake was made depending upon interpretation of the term "Registrar" as defined in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Deputy Registrar, therefore, conducted the enquiry and his order was challenged by filing a Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.2208 of 2008. That Writ Petition was placed before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who by an order dated 30th September 2008 granted four weeks to conduct the enquiry and there is due compliance thereof, inasmuch as the Registrar conducted the enquiry and :4: submitted his report/passed an order on 27th October 2008. This is much before the period prescribed by this order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no contempt. 5. On the last occasion, I brought to the notice of learned Assistant Government Pleader that what is alleged in the Contempt Petition is violation and breach of the order dated 14th July 2008, which is passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That order granted 15th days to complete the enquiry. That order directs the Registrar to conduct the enquiry. Admittedly, this order has not been complied with and there is no question of justifying the action by contending that the learned Single Judge’s order has been duly complied with. It is not as if the Petitioner was forced to move the Court more than once. It is the Court which was compelled to order and direct repeatedly the authorities to fulfil their obligation under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In such circumstances, by merely saying that there is no intention to flout the order or that there is no deliberate or willful contempt of the order was not enough. The Authorities ought to have accepted their mistake and accepting the mistake they must tender unconditional apology for their inability to comply with the order of the Division Bench. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader sought time and has now filed an affidavit of the Registrar, the :5: Deputy Registrar, K-West Ward and the Deputy Registrar, G-South Ward. Each of these affidavits tender unconditional apology for the inability to comply with the order dated 14th July 2008 of the Division Bench. The Registrar so also the other Officers are personally present before the Court. 7. It is in these circumstances, and the Officers having realized their mistake so also they assuring the Court that the same would not be repeated in future that I accept their unconditional apology. Though the breach and violation is clear, for the reasons set out in their affidavits, it cannot be said to be intentional and deliberate. Since the breach has been accepted so also an unconditional apology tendered for the same, the Contempt Petition is disposed off, in the light of the apologies tendered on affidavits, filed in Court on 4th March 2009. The Contempt Petition stands disposed off accordingly. 8. Notice of Motion No. 492 of 2008 is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed off as such. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)