1 C.P.11.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 11 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8253 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8809 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2004. Bhargavram S/o Baliram Bhopi. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Vijaykumar S/o Ambadas Bhopi and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.Vinayak D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for respondent-State. Mr.Vivek Dhage,Advocate for Respdt.No.2,3,6,7,8,10 and 11 ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : . This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that there is disobedience of the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 8253 of 2007 and order dated 18.10.2007, in Civil Application No. 8809 of 2007. 2 C.P.11.08 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders of disobedience is alleged to have been passed prior to dismissal of Second Appeal. The order dismissing the Second Appeal was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the said matter has directed the parties to maintain status quo. So far as, disobedience/contempt of the Courts’ order, which are already passed prior to disposal of Second Appeal cannot be governed by subsequent orders. It is alleged in the petition that respondents have committed contempts of Court orders by disobeying the orders dated 10.10.2007 and 18.10.2007, passed by this Court. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in spite of specific observations in the above mentioned orders, alleged contemnors are not allowing the petitioner to perform ‘Pooja’ and other religious activities and they are obstructing the petitioner from performing such ‘Pooja’ and other religious activities, therefore, 3 C.P.11.08 it amounts to contempt. Learned counsel further submits that though it was brought to the notice of the Police Authority, however, the said Authority has not taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no question of amicable settlement by the Police about disputes or quarrels between the parties. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondents are liable to be punished in accordance with Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that there was no obstruction to the petitioner while performing ‘Pooja’ under permissible limits as observed in the orders of this Court dated 10.10.2007 in Second Appeal and subsequent order in another Civil Application. According to the learned counsel for alleged contemnors, a mediator was appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by that 4 C.P.11.08 time parties are directed to maintain status-quo. He also submitted that there was no aggravation or contempt by the alleged contemnors to obstruct ‘Pooja’ or religious activities. However, it is the contention of the counsel appearing for the alleged contemnors that petitioner is trying to pose as the main ‘Poojari’ of the temple and also he is preforming the acts, which is not permissible. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for alleged contemnors, there is no willful disobedience of the orders of the Court. 5. Learned AGP invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr. Vivek Basvantrao Ghodke, Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, District Nanded and submitted that in para No. 10 of the said affidavit-in-reply, the deponent states that the Officer has made enquiry, collected the copies of Station Diary dated 12.10.2007 and 19.10.2007, wherein he found that after the order passed by this Court in Civil 5 C.P.11.08 Applications, some quarrels, disputes were happened between the parties, which were settled amicably by the Police. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of affidavit in reply filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, it is abundantly clear that there were some quarrels/disputes between the parties, which have been settled amicably. In para No.10 of the affidavit-in reply Sub-Divisional Officer has made it clear that there were some quarrels, disputes and said quarrels are resolved. 7. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, it is difficult to invoke the contempt jurisdiction and further to punish the alleged contemnors, holding that there is willful disobedience of the orders, as such. Therefore, on reading para No.10 of the affidavit-in-reply, it clearly emerges that disputes/quarrels have been settled by Police. If 6 C.P.11.08 petitioner is having any further grievance he can always file an application with Police authority and Sub-Divisional Officer, and such authorities shall look into it. The order in Second Appeal is assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and now the Hon’ble Supreme Court has appointed a mediator and directed to maintain the status quo. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in this contempt petition, the same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK