1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.218 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.2294 of 2005 (D) (Shri Keshaorao Santoshrao Dehankar and another v. Shri Sudhirkumar Goyal, Secretary, Department of Co-operation and Marketing, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri R.J. Kankale, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 20 th April, 2011 This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment dated 27-7-2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2294 of 2005. The operative part of the said judgment, of which the contempt is complained of, is reproduced below : “1) Statement made by the State Government to complete the election process by 31 st January, 2006 is accepted. 2 2) If by 1 st September, 2005 the election process is not commenced, the Administrator appointed by the State Government will stand relieved and the erstwhile elected committee of respondent nos.3 and 4 will act as the Administrator of respondent nos.3 and 4 till such time the elections are held, and the new committee enter into office as committee of respondent nos.3 and 4.” Writ Petition No.2294 of 2005 was filed challenging the action of the respondents in continuing the Administrator on both the Agricultural Produce Market Committes (APMCs), Katol and Narkhed. This Court had, therefore, passed an order recording the statement that the election process shall be completed by 31-1-2006, and if the process is not commenced by 1-9-2005, the Administrator appointed by the State Government will stand relieved and the erstwhile elected committee of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 will act as the Administrator of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 till such time the elections are held and the new committee enters into office. In response to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.2294 of 2005, an election programme was declared in respect of both the APMCs by a notification dated 5-12-2005. This election programme has been stayed by the Apex Court on 9-12-2005 in SLP (Civil) Nos.22350-22351/2005. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is that the stay operates in respect of the elections of the APMCs, Katol and Narkhed. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stay operates only in respect of the elections to the APMC, Katol, as it was the only 3 party-respondent in the said SLP. In view of the fact that it was a common election programme issued for the elections to the APMCs at Katol and Narkhed, and Writ Petition No.2294 of 2005 decided by this Court on 27-7-2005 pertained to the challenge to the continuation of the Administrator on both the APMCs, Katol and Narkhed, and the issue regarding the elections involved in both these APMCs being common, the respondents have decided to stay the process of elections in respect of the APMC, Narkhed also. In the background of the above factual position in which the decision has been taken by the respondents, it cannot be said that a case for taking action for contempt is made out. The contempt proceedings are, therefore, dropped. Judge pdl