1 CONP 10.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEM PETITION NO. 10 OF 2011 Prof. Ajit Anant Kinikar. ... Petitioner. V/s. University of India & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.A. Desai for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 1st AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. The Petitioner was appointed in the Respondent - College as a lecturer. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed in the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category. He was terminated in the year 1995. The order of termination was challenged before the College Tribunal. By an order dated 10.2.1994. The College Tribunal set aside the termination. The Petitioner was again terminated in the year 1995. The Writ Petition came to be filed against the order of second termination bearing Writ Petition No.4378 of 1995. By an order dated 23rd June 2006, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Lodha and Bagga, JJ.) dismissed the Petition. The learned Counsel submits that a Special Leave Petition was filed against the order of dismissal of Writ Petition in the Apex 2 CONP 10.11.sxw Court and the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed in the year 2009. Review Petition came to be filed by the Petitioner in respect of the order passed by the Division Bench dismissing the Writ Petition No.4378 of1995. There was delay in filing Review Petition and by an order dated 9th November 2008, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Nazki and Bhatia, JJ.) dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 3. The Petitioner's contention is that a wrong statement on oath was made by the Respondent (Proposed Contemnor) before the College Tribunal in respect of the advertisement, which ought to have been issued for three consecutive years. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. We find that the Petitioner had sought consent for initiating Criminal Contempt proceedings. By a communication dated 28th June 2011, the learned Advocate General had rejected the Application seeking consent. 5. On merits, we do not find that the Petitioner has made out a prima-facie case to issue notice to the Respondents or initiate Contempt Proceedings. The Petition filed is being filed at a belated stage near-about after 2 and half years after dismissal of Review Petition. Even otherwise, there is no case made out for permission of Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is mis-conceived and the same is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) 3 CONP 10.11.sxw