1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.199/2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2878/2002 Ku. Venutai d/o Vithobaji Lokhande ...Versus... Shri Suresh s/o Nathuji Bangilwar and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri A.R. Ingole, Adv. h/f Shri A.M. Gordey, Adv. for petitioner] [Shri Suresh Nathuji Bangilwar, respdt. No.1-in-person] CORAM:- A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED :- 16.09.2009 On 24.3.2004, this Court had made an order on merits stating therein that justification for not paying salary for the period ordered by this Court was convincing and therefore, this Court held that there was no wilful default on the part of the respondents and that is why the contempt petition was dismissed. Thereafter on 28.8.2009, this Court observed that on the statement made by learned Counsel for the petitioner that no documents were filed by respondent-in-person to show that school was really de-recognized on 26.4.2001, the contempt petition was wrongly dismissed under the said earlier order. It is on that ground this Court on 28.8.2009 directed the respondent-in-person to produce those documents. Today, respondent-in-person placed before me order, dated 27.4.2001, passed by the Education Officer, 2 (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, order dated 28.6.2001, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in appeal, maintaining the said earlier order, dated 27.4.2001, and judgment and order, dated 11.8.2004, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2878/2002, wherein there is reference to the said de-recognition order, dated 27.4.2001 and direction to follow Rule 25 A of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. These documents are taken on record and marked “X, X-I and X-II” respectively for identification. In view of this, I do not find that the statement made by respondent-in-person, when the contempt petition was dismissed, could be said to be wrong statement. In the result, this contempt petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE ssw