1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 378 OF 2007 Premanand Rama Naik .... Petitioner V/s Pandurang G. Gaunekar .... Respondent Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. N.K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st JULY, 2008 ORAL ORDER : Heard Counsel for parties. After notice, the matter is placed for admission and by consent it is disposed off finally. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns that part of the order by which an application dated 27/01/2006 filed by the petitioner/applicant to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the original respondent no.5 has been dismissed. 3. The Mamlatdar of Ponda Taluka, Ponda, Goa, is seized of the main proceedings undisputedly. They are yet to be disposed of. The present application was made by the Petitioner/applicant, as in his submission the order passed by the Mamlatdar has not been obeyed and since the Mamlatdar in the relevant statute exercises judicial power, it is therefore “Court” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, in 2 the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the original applicant, the issue is whether the order has been allegedly disobeyed and breached, when it was in force. That the order has been stayed by the higher Authority is of no consequence. In so far as contempt of Court proceedings are concerned, the grievance is that merely because the said order is stayed, the Mamlatdar has refused to take cognizance of the application and instead directed the petitioner to approach the Deputy Collector. Thus, submission is that the Mamlatdar failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in law. His plain duty was to consider the application within the four corners of Section 10 and make a report thereafter. 4. After this matter was argued for sometime and it is brought to my notice that the main proceedings are pending, in my view, interest of justice would be subserved, if the matter on merits is allowed to proceed, but the application dated 27/01/2006 is reheard by the Mamlatdar. When he rehears this application in accordance with the directions of this Court, he should not be influenced by the observations made in para at page 3 of the impugned order. Needless to state that the impugned order so far as it rejects application dated 27/01/2006 is quashed and set aside and the said application is restored to the file of the Mamlatdar for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Mamlatdar to hear both sides on the said application. With these clarifications and by setting aside the impugned order to the extent indicated 3 above, the petition is disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NH/-