1 Contempt Petition No.224/1995 in Writ Petition No.997/1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.224 OF 1995 IN WRIT PETITION NO.997 OF 1995 Ramrao s/o Shankarappa Kawathale ... PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Mallikarjunappa S. Bidve & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.V. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 6th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 28.3.1995, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.997/1995. This Court, in para No.7 of the order dated 20.3.1995, in Writ Petition No.997/1995, observed thus : “Some dispute about the membership is pending before the District Judge, Latur under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. In view of this and in view of the facts of the case, I also direct that the trust shall not delete anybody from the membership list, add anybody to the membership list or shall not remove any of the office bearers or shall not appoint any fresh 2 Contempt Petition No.224/1995 in Writ Petition No.997/1995 office bearer during the pendency of enquiry under Section 41-D pending before the Charity Commissioner. The Trust shall also not transfer any of the properties of the trust except the allocation of the shops, as indicated above. The trust shall not make any new appointments except with the approval of educational authorities concerned in the schools and colleges run by the society and that too on probation or temporary basis, as the need may be and will not enter into the contract or create any third party interest in any of the properties of the trust. The notice of every general body meeting or the working committee meeting shall be given by registered post.” 2. Upon careful perusal of para 7 of the order passed by this Court on 28.3.1995, it is clear that, respondent Trust was directed not to make any appointment except with the approval of the Education authorities concerned in the schools and colleges run by the Society that too on probation on temporary basis. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of specific directions in para 7 of the order dated 28.3.1995, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have given new appointments without taking approval of the Educational authorities. Therefore, there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 3. Though the respondents are served, none appears for the respondents, however, the affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are on record. Respondent No.3 was Principal at the relevant time. Respondent No.3 was not party to the Writ Petition, 3 Contempt Petition No.224/1995 in Writ Petition No.997/1995 has filed detailed affidavit-in-reply. In para 8 of the affidavit-in- reply, it is stated that, the word “approval”, which appears in the order, of which disobedience has been alleged, mean and denotes approval as is required by law and rules. However, the petitioner has attempted to interprete it by adding the word “prior” before it. It is further stated that, in Rule 8(2) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, approval to the appointment of the members of staff has to be sought only after it is done. However, they have denied only averments in the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondent No.3. 4. In para 4 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1, it is stated that the respondent No.1 has not disobeyed the order passed by this Court or has not committed any contempt. However, if this Court reaches to the conclusion that in the affairs of the said college, if the respondent No.1 has committed any act contrary to the directions given by this Court, in that event, the respondent No.1 tenders unconditional apology. The respondent No.2 has also filed the affidavit. In para 4 of the affidavit, it is stated that, if this Court reaches to the conclusion that, while carrying on the affairs of the said college, if the respondent No.2 has committed any act contrary to the directions given by this Court, then he tenders unconditional apology. 4 Contempt Petition No.224/1995 in Writ Petition No.997/1995 5. Upon careful perusal of para 7 of the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this Contempt Petition, it is abundantly clear that the direction was given to the respondents to take approval of the Educational authorities and then only make appointments. From the tenor of the affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, it is abundantly clear that, prior approval of the Educational authorities was not sought by the respondents and appointments were made and subsequently, the proposals were sent for the approval with the Educational authorities. Though the respondent No.3 has tried to justify the action of the respondents in making appointments without approval of the Educational authorities, in my opinion, said action of the respondents to make appointments without approval of the Educational authorities was clearly in breach of the directions issued by this Court in para 7 of the order, of which disobedience is alleged in this contempt petition. However, the real question is whether said action of the respondents making appointments without prior approval of the Educational authorities was with a willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In my opinion, taking overall view of the matter, though there is a breach of directions by the respondents by making appointments without prior approval of the Educational authorities, in view of the fact that subsequently proposals were sent for approval of the Educational authorities and in the light of 5 Contempt Petition No.224/1995 in Writ Petition No.997/1995 averments in para 4 of the affidavits-in-reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendering unconditional apology, this petition can be disposed of by accepting unconditional apology tendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavits-in-reply. Therefore, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the contempt petition is disposed of by accepting unconditional apology tendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their affidavits-in-reply. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there was a breach of direction by the respondents by making appointments without approval of the Educational authorities. However, in view of the fact that proposals were sent for subsequent approvals and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have tendered unconditional apology, the contempt petition stands disposed of by accepting the unconditional apology tendered by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/-cp224.95