1 cp339.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 339 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1969 OF 2007 Suryabhan s/o Ramjirao Kale, Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Headmaster, R/o. At post Sastur, Tq. Lohara, District Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The President of Shri Shanteshwar Shikshan Samiti, Shri. VIshwambhar s/o Maruti Pawar, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. At Post Sastur,Tq.Lohara, District Osmanabad. 2. The Joint Secretary of Shri Shanteshwar Shikshan Samiti, Shri. Shankar s/o Sharannappa Mitkari, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. At Post Sastur, Tq.Lohara, District Osmanabad. 3. The Head Master of Shri Shanteshwar Vidyalaya Shri.Kashinath L. Rathod, Age: 45 years, Occ: Service, R/o. C/o. Shri Shanteshwar Vidyalaya At Post Sastur, Tq.Lohara, District Osmanabad. 4. The Education Officer (Secondary), Osmanabad Zilla Parishad, Shri. Shivdas T. Nalawade, Age: 47 years, Occ: Service, r/o. C/o. Osmanabad Zilla Parishad. 2 cp339.08 5. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to the Department of Education, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-32. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH JUNE, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : This Contempt Petition is taken up for final hearing. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the judgment and order dated 24-01-2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1969 of 2007 by which this Court confirmed the judgment and order passed by the School Tribunal. 3 cp339.08 3. It is not in dispute that the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, as confirmed by this Court has been fully complied with by the respondents. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said judgment and order has not been complied with by the respondents within stipulated period as directed by the School Tribunal or this Court. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the act of the respondents amounts to willful disobedience of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 24-01-2008 confirming the judgment and order of the School Tribunal. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submits that the respondents may be punished for disobedience of the order of this Court. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that this contempt petition is not maintainable in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque vs. S.A. Azmi 4 cp339.08 and others reported in 2001(Supp.2) Bom.C.R. 37. He further submits that since alternate remedy for execution of the School Tribunal judgment and order was available to the petitioner herein, there is no question of filing contempt petition or entertaining this contempt petition as held in the judgment cited supra. He further submitted that if alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, contempt petition before the High Court is not maintainable. He further invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that order of the School Tribunal as confirmed by this Court, has been fully complied with. If at all there is any delay, same is not intentional. The Counsel further invited my attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and submitted that, if at all there is delay in compliance of the order, the respondents have tendered unconditional apology for the said delay and same may be accepted. 5. I have given due consideration to the 5 cp339.08 submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. I have also perused the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque (supra). In that case, this Court held that, High Court should be reluctant to entertain the petition in case alternate remedy for execution is available. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the judgment and order of the School Tribunal is fully complied with and the petitioner is receiving all benefits. It is true that there is some delay in implementing the judgment and order of the School Tribunal. However, Writ Petition was preferred by the Management challenging the judgment and order of the School Tribunal which came to be dismissed on 24-01-2008. Therefore, some time was consumed in prosecuting the said writ petition. 6. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, it is difficult to hold that there was willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court or by the School Tribunal by the 6 cp339.08 respondents. 7. In the light of affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, this contempt petition can be disposed of. Though this Court has reservation about the maintainability of this contempt petition, in view of the alternate remedy available under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act,1977 for execution of the judgment and order of the School Tribunal, without going into said aspect, taking overall view of the matter and since the judgment and order is fully implemented, the contempt petition can be conveniently disposed off. Accordingly, Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11