1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 162/2003 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1385/2001 (Devikinandan Parmeshwarlal Jaiswal Vs Jaikumar Parmeshwar Jaiswal.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th APRIL, 2008. Heard Shri C.V. Joshi for the petitioner, and Mrs. Chandekar for the respondent. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent as provided under the Provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, for breach of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1385/2001 on 20/6/2001. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 20/6/2001 in a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Court had stayed the impugned order passed against the petitioner therein (respondent in the contempt petition), on the condition that the petitioner therein should keep true and correct accounts of sales and purchases of the country liquor as per the 2 Rules prescribed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the specific orders passed by the Court on 20/6/2001, the respondent did not maintain the true and correct accounts of sales and purchases of the country liquor. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent sold the country liquor to the customers at a price higher than the scheduled rate fixed by the Government and neither deposited the excess amount received by him over and above the price fixed by the Government, nor did he maintain the accounts by showing that the country liquor was sold at a higher price. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Inspector of Excise had submitted a report to the Superintendent of Excise which clearly showed that the respondent had sold a bottle of country liquor at Rs. 17/- when the scheduled price of the same was Rs. 12.82 paise only. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on an objection raised by the respondent to the aforesaid report, it was held by the Collector, Akola, by the order dated 16/6/2003 that the charge against the respondent was partially proved and the respondent was liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the violation. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had indulged in selling the country liquor at a price which was 3 higher than the scheduled price and had not maintained the account showing the actual price and has thereby flouted the order passed by this Court on 20/6/2001. Mrs. Chandekar, the learned counsel for the respondent, relied on the three affidavits filed by the respondent. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had maintained true and proper accounts of the sales and purchases of country liquor. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent had not maintained the true and correct accounts of sales and purchases of the country liquor as per the prescribed rules. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that a civil suit between the parties is still pending before the trial Court and an application was filed by one of the defendants who a is brother of the present parties, for initiating an action against the respondent under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is then submitted on behalf of the respondent that though the writ petition is filed by the respondent against the order passed by the Collector on 16/6/2003, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the respondent has preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the same. The counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of this Court that several matters are 4 pending between the parties in various Courts. As the respondent has denied that the respondent has not maintained the true and correct accounts of sales and purchases of the country liquor, present contempt needs to be dropped. I have perused the documents annexed to the contempt petition. I have also perused the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 20/6/2001. The learned single Judge had granted stay in favour of the respondent only on the condition that the respondent should keep true and correct sales and purchases account of the country liquor as per the Rules prescribed. If in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the omission on the part of respondent to maintain the accounts of sales and purchases of country liquor, the petitioner had other remedies available. Moreover, the learned single Judge had not issued a specific direction to the respondent to maintain the true and correct accounts of sales and purchases of the country liquor, but had granted stay in favour of the respondent only on the condition that the respondent maintains and keeps true and correct accounts of sale and purchase of the country liquor as per the Rules prescribed. This is a case where the stay granted in favour of the respondent was only made conditional. The Court did not specifically 5 direct the respondent to perform a particular act or duty. In any case, the question as to whether the respondent had maintained the accounts of sales and purchases of country liquor properly is subjudice before the trial Court. The issue which is involved in the contempt petition, is an issue subjudice before the trial Court. This is a case where on one hand, the petitioner alleges that the respondent has not maintained true and correct account and the respondent has stated in the submission that the true and correct accounts are maintained by the respondent. This Court may not be able to go into the disputed questions of fact. For the aforesaid reason, the contempt proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP