1 C.P.No.189/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.189 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3622 OF 2011 Chudaman s/o Dodhu Jadhav ... PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Ajay Mehta & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri P.P. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.S. Shelke, Advocate for respondentNos.1, 2 & 5 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 29th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.5.2011 in Writ Petition No.3622/2011. 2. This contempt petition was heard on 7.6.2011. On the said date, the hearing of the contempt petition was deferred to 13.6.2011. On 13.6.2011 notices are issued. In pursuance 2 C.P.No.189/2011 to the notice, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed the affidavit- in-reply. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the stay granted by this Court was communicated to the Deputy Executive Engineer, as well as other respondents and the Deputy Executive Engineer (Operation & Maintenance), Chalisgaon Region. The Executive Engineer has cancelled the relieving order. According to the counsel for petitioner, the said order was communicated to the petitioner on 13.5.2011. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the Deputy Executive Engineer has no powers to relive the petitioner. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the office order dated 9.5.2011 is signed by Deputy Executive Engineer, he was not competent to pass such order. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, since the Deputy Executive Engineer was not competent to pass the office order on 9.5.2011, question of relieving the petitioner w.e.f. 9.5.2011 does not arise. This Court has passed the order on 10.5.2011, which was duly communicated to the Executive Engineer and accordingly, the Executive Engineer has 3 C.P.No.189/2011 cancelled the order dated 9.5.2011, passed by the Deputy Executive Engineer. In pursuance to the cancellation of order relieving the petitioner, the petitioner working in the same office. 4. In my opinion, the contempt petition filed by the petitioner is abuse of process of law. Such contempt petition cannot be entertained even for a moment. There is no contempt as such. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has brought to my notice that the general order was issued by Chief General Manager. In said order, in clause (2) of the footnote, it is clearly mentioned that the said order will take effect from 7.5.2011. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp189.11