1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.62 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.826 OF 2009 Tirupati Prathisthan Andhori, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary, Sandeep S/o.Santramji Rabbewar, Age-35 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Andhori, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur, PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Pavankumar Sharma, Age-56 years, Occu-Service, Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, “Manas Bhavan” Shyamla Hills, Bhopal – 562002. 2. Dr.B.K.Sharma, Age-58 years, Occu-Service, Director-Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, “Manas Bhavan” Shyamla Hills, Bhopal-562002. RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Pawar, learned counsel for petitioner. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 15/03/2010 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. The present contempt petition is moved by the petitioner as the respondents have violated the order passed on 20/04/2009 in Writ Petition No.826/2009 to which this bench is also a party. In para no. 2 of the order dated 20/04/2009, we have given directions to the respondents to consider the proposal on its own merit, at an early date, but in any case on or before 31/10/2009. It is the grievance of the petitioner that within the stipulated period, the case of the petitioner was not considered on its own merit, hence there is contempt. Perusal of the documents annexed with this contempt petition itself shows that till the month of Oct.2009, correspondence was going on between the petitioner and respondents about the documents submitted by the petitioner, which are under consideration. The last correspondence is of 01/10/2009, wherein submission of further documents and compliance of the High Court directions, to take the decision under the order passed in WP No. 826/2009 is made. From this correspondence, it appears that till the month of October, this correspondence is going on. The applicants have produced the letter passed on 30/12/2009, wherein the respondents had passed the order that lease documents submitted by the petitioner is invalid, hence the proposal filed by the petitioner is closed. The fact remains that as the correspondence is going on about the submission of documents between the petitioner and respondents, even till the month of October 2009, when this 3 Court has passed the order in the month of April 2009, the respondents can not be faulted for not passing the order till 30/10/2009, as the correspondence was in progress. The order dated 30/12/2009 indicates that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the document of lease is invalid. In the premise, if the petitioner is aggrieved by this order, then the petitioner to challenge this order and not to prefer the contempt petition for favourable orders. It appears that filing of contempt petition is like a pressurized tactics on the respondents to pass the favourable orders. The contempt petition is even not of worth to issue notice to the respondents. Hence petition stands rejected in lemine at the stage of notice itself. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cp62-10