: 1 : conp-9-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 9 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2008 Parasmal s/o Uttamchand Jain & Anr. .. Petitioners v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Sujeet Kurup with Ms. Seema Chopda for the petitioners Ms. Uma Palsuledesai for State Ms. Aarti Khadilkar i/b Bhave & Co. for respondent no.7. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. No show cause notice was issued. Certain proceedings were pending before the Charity Commissioner and on 21st October 2008 it was indicated by the learned advocate appearing for the Charity Commissioner that those proceedings are pending before him. On hearing the said statement, an order was passed on the very day i.e. 21st October, 2008 directing the Charity Commissioner to hear the petitioners and decide the applications pending before it in accordance with the provisions of law, expeditiously. The petition was disposed of. The order also says that respondents will abide by their statement. A perusal of this order would : 2 : conp-9-10=.sxw mean that the Charity Commissioner who was performing his judicial / quasi judicial function was required to hear and decide the applications referred to in the Writ Petition (L) No.2276 of 2008 for which this order dated 21st October, 2008 was passed. The petitioners make a grievance that those applications have not been decided by the Charity Commissioner and, therefore, the Charity Commissioner has committed contempt. Paragraph 3(u) of petition gives details of various dates on which proceedings were adjourned. Reading of the petition would go to show that the said proceedings are pending and are being adjourned from time to time. On reading of the petition, it is not possible to know as to why the proceedings are adjourned from time to time. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the Charity Commissioner has committed contempt by not complying with order dated 21st October, 2008. I am not inclined to accept the said contention. The Charity Commissioner was directed to decide certain proceedings pending before him expeditiously. No time limit was fixed. Noting the fact that they are judicial proceedings, this Court cannot take a view that because he has not decided the said proceedings up till now, he has committed contempt of the oder of the Court. There could be many reasons why the Charity Commissioner has not been able to comply with the said order. On the basis of reading of the : 3 : conp-9-10=.sxw petition, there is nothing which can be said that the Charity Commissioner is intentionally avoiding disposal of the said proceedings. 3. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioners have made a complaint to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice making grievance about conduct of the learned Charity Commissioner. I do not wish to say anything about the said complaint. In my view, no prima-facie case for having committed contempt by the Charity Commissioner is made out. Petition is required to be dismissed. 4. It is required to be noted that affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 Mr. Shingane, Assistant Charity Commissioner. It is required to be stated that since no show cause notice was issued to any of the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why action under the Contempt of Court Act should not be taken I have not gone through the said affidavit. 5. For reasons mentioned above, the contempt petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Service Authority. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)