1 CP Nos.27/11, 32/2011 & 315/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONT.PETITION NO.27 OF 2011 In SA/245/2009 VITHAL LAXMAN ATRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ANR With CP/32/2011 In WP/7045/2007, RASIKLAL LAXMICHAND SANGHARAJKA VS THE STATE OF MAH. AND ANR. With CP/315/2011 In WP/10599/2010 SHRI DUTTA DEOSTHAN TRUST, AHMEDNGAR VS SHAILENDRA SHANKARRAO TAMBE ... Advocate for Petitioner/s : Mr.V.S.Bedre Mr.SV Natu, Adv. For Petitioner (In CP 315/2011) AGP for Respondent/s: Mr.KJ Ghute-Patil ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Mr.Bedre, on instructions, submits, after filing of the Change Report, Contempt Petition No. 32/2011 shall not survive. Consequently, it is disposed of. 2 CP Nos.27/11, 32/2011 & 315/2011 2) In Contempt Petition No.27/2011, the petitioner asserted that the order of this court, recorded in Second Appeal No.245/2009 dated 1st September, 2009 to dispose of the change report being C.R.No.642/2008 within six months, is not consciously adhered to by the respondent, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar. 3) This Court, on 27.4.2011, after hearing Mr. Bedre, Mr.Natu and AGP and perusal of the record, found that Assistant Charity Commissioner has created camouflage and he hurriedly made a show of passing of order in the absence of parties, without even any notice to them to show compliance of the directions in Second Appeal No.245/2009. 4) Both the parties had grievance before this Court, reflected in order in Para no.13, the conduct of the respondent – Assistant Charity Commissioner was found to be actuated with deliberate faults which made this court to issue notice in form No.1 rule 9 of Chapter 34 of High Court Appellate Side, Rules, calling upon the Respondent to explain as to why action shall not be taken against him for intentionally violating/flouting the orders of this Court. Pursuant to such notice, the Respondent, the then Assistant Charity Commissioner, has tendered his affidavit, explained the situation and also with folded hands sought apology for the mistake committed by him in dealing with the different Change Reports and not acting in tune with the orders of this court 3 CP Nos.27/11, 32/2011 & 315/2011 dated 1st September, 2009. 5) The Contempt Petition No.315/2011 has another history, in writ petition No.7045/2007 on 12.12.2007, the Division bench directed the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to dispose all the three change reports bearing Nos.5557/2003, 750/2003 and 1366/2004 in a time frame of six months. Para no.4 of the order reads as under : “4. We, therefore, direct Respondent No.2 to consider the change reports on their own merits and try to dispose of the same as far as possible within a period of six months from today.” 6) Another CA No.1892/2009 in said writ petition was moved and by order dated 12th February, 2009, the Division Bench did not entertain the application for extension as the Court had already granted extension of time as it was prayed. 7) One of the party preferred WP No.10599/2010, represented by Mr.Natu, in which on 12th November, 2010, notices were made returnable on 28th December, 2010 and the learned Single Judge directed ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c), which reads as under : “(c) During pendency of this petition, further proceedings of CR No.750/2003 may kindly be stayed.” 4 CP Nos.27/11, 32/2011 & 315/2011 8) It is imperative, by the directions of the Division Bench dated 12.12.2007, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner was expected to deal with and dispose of three change reports. However, as stated above, he was clamped with injunction by order dated 30th November, 2010, not to proceed in change report No.750/2003. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner in spite of all efforts at his command, apparently got confused of the directions of the Division Bench and also of the learned Single Judge and consequently did not follow in tune to the orders of the Division Bench dated 12.12.2007 and hence he is facing contempt proceedings in CP No. 315/1022. 9) Reading the affidavit and the submissions on behalf of the then Assistant Charity Commissioner, I find, indeed he has not acted in discharge of the directions issued on 1st September, 2009 or issued on 12.12.2007 (WP No.7045/2007). The explanation offered, though is rebelling the record, however, considering the confusion created in his mind due to orders in WP No.7045/2007 and WP No.10599/2010, the notices issued by this Court are dropped with warning to learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to be more cautious and careful. 10) The explanation offered and apology tendered is accepted. Both the Contempt Petitions are disposed of. 11) Office to independently inform learned 5 CP Nos.27/11, 32/2011 & 315/2011 Assistant Charity Commissioner of today's order, though his counsel is present. A copy of this order as well as order dated 27.4.2011 in Contempt Petition No.27/2011 be sent to learned Registrar General, High Court, Bombay, for appropriate action and effecting an entry in the service book of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/