1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 82 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 (ASHOKRAO NARAYANRAO SOMWANSHI. VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Manoj Kariya, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010. 1. Heard Shri Kariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act for willful disobedience of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court on 22nd February, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 754 of 2010. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the judgment of which the contempt is alleged it appears that the petitioner had not made any grievance before this Court in Writ Petition No.254/2010 that ineligible persons have been registered as voters. This Court directed the respondents to ensure that only Form-18 which was printed in prescribed format should be accepted for the purpose of registration of the voters. The petitioner was also 2 permitted to raise an objection about improper registration of voters before the Electoral Officer. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have ensured the acceptance of Form-18 printed on one side only from 3rd April, 2010 and that, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that the respondents have accepted the forms printed on both sides prior to the issuance of the communication dated 03.04.2010. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents have accepted forms which are not printed in the prescribed format and have deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court on 22nd February, 2010 by accepting forms which are printed on both the sides. In case, the objection raised by the petitioner, before the Electoral Officer, is rejected for some reason which may not be valid, the petitioner can resort to other remedies as may be advised. 5. From the perusal of the averments in the contempt petition no case is made out for initiating any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Contempt Petition is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..