: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.83 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1775 OF 2008 Bhagat S. Dugar & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. K.L. Mehra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.H.S. Venegavkar i/b.Mr.Ashok Purohit for the Petitioners. Mr.Sandeep K. Shinde i/b.Sagar Kasar for the Respondents. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP (O.S.) for Deputy Registrar ‘D’ Ward Co-op. Societies, Mumbai. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, DATED : DATED : DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2009 31ST MARCH, 2009 31ST MARCH, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- Although, technically there may have been a contravention of the order of the Deputy Registrar as confirmed by an order of this Court dated 12.8.2008 in Writ Petition No.1775 of 2008, no action for Contempt of Court is called for. 2. The contravention, if any, is purely technical. There is nothing that suggests that the same was done with a view to wilfully disobey the order of this Court or even of the Deputy Registrar. : 2 : 3. By the order dated 17.1.2008 the Deputy Registrar appointed an administrator of the society in view of the contravention of section 73(1)(AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. This order having been confirmed by the order of this Court dated 12.8.2008 prohibited the members of the managing committee from acting as such, atleast with effect from 12.8.2008. 4. Admittedly, today, the administrator has taken charge and the members of the managing committee are not carrying out any functions. What is alleged is that despite the above orders, by a letter dated 1.9.2008 the members of the managing committee enclosed the minutes of the 41st Annual General Meeting held on 10.8.2008. This by itself would, at the highest, constitute contempt only in a very technical sense. The letter however further records that the managing committee approved the minutes at a meeting held on 31.8.2008. This they were not entitled to do. However, there is nothing that suggests that the same was done willfully with a view to defy the above orders. 5. It is then alleged that by a letter dated 9.9.08 : 3 : Respondent no.1 informed the members of the society that an application dated 21.11.1970 for the conveyance has been admitted by the Sub-Registrar of Assurances and that the conveyance deed has been received by the society. This was only a communication in respect of acts which had already taken place 38 years ago. The administrator has not taken charge till 8.12.2008. Based on this alone, I am not inclined to take any action in contempt. 6. In any event, the Respondents have tendered an apology. This is a fit case, even assuming that there was any contempt, where an apology ought to be accepted. 7. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. ***