1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 238/2008 (Prashant Shantilalji Kataria & another VERSUS Virendra Tarachandji Puglia) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.M. Bhutada, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully disobeying the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 17.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.3937/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008 on 17.09.2008, the respondent no.1 has not paid the occupation charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month towards the suit flat from 01.07.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 deposited Rs.45,000/- on 10.10.2008 but, thereafter failed to deposit the arrears of occupation charges and also the regular occupation 2 charges from November-2008 onwards. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 had deliberately flouted the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008. I have perused the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3937/2008. There was no direction to the respondent no.1 to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards occupation charges from 01.07.2007 or the monthly occupation charges. The Court had, in fact, observed in paragraph 10 of the judgment dated 17.09.2008 that the order directing the respondent no.2, the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company, to supply electricity to the suit flat, where the respondent no.1 was residing with his family members, was confirmed subject to the payment of occupation charges of Rs.10,000/- per month from 01.07.2007 and in case the regular occupation charges were deposited by the respondent no.1. It appears that the order for 3 making of the deposit was not an unconditional one and in fact the order directing the Board to supply electricity to the suit flat was confirmed subject to the condition of making the deposit of the occupation charges. In case, the occupation charges were not deposited by the respondent no.1 as directed by the judgment dated 17.09.2008,the order directing the respondent no.2 to supply electricity to the flat would be deemed to have not been confirmed but, the non deposit of the occupation charges would not be a ground for initiating the contempt action against the respondent no.1. In this background, there is no case made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE