IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO. 3 OF 2008 Versus DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT PANAJI AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. S.Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. Rakhi Chodankar for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni and Mr.H.D. Naik, Advocates for respondents no.3 and 4. Coram:- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 24th September, 2008 ORAL ORDER This Court had taken cognizance of news item and initiated suo motu action. In response to the Order passed by this Court on 1.8.2008, Affidavits have been filed by the authorities namely Director of Panchayats, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Margao and the State of Goa. The private parties namely respondents no.3 and 4 have also filed their Affidavits. As far as respondent no.3 is concerned, he states on Affidavit that he is a Deputy Sarpanch of Village Panchayat of Benaulim and he has apologized to the Court for not implementing the Court orders inasmuch as he himself accepts the position that his arrest was effected by the Police authorities after the incident of July, 2007. The chargesheet is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, and the case is concluded. He was once again arrested in July, 2008. He has pointed out that in the case of July, 2007, resulting in his conviction and fine the same has been duly complied with. As far as the incident of July, 2008 is concerned, he admits that he was arrested and subsequently released on bail. There are several allegations and counter allegations of political interference but we do not wish to enter into the same inasmuch as the first respondent has initiated action under the Goa Panchayat Raj Act against Respondent no.3 and the same is pending. 2. In para 11 and 12 of the Affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 he has stated as follows: "11. I state that my family owns atleast 20 buffaloes. I state that my family is carrying on business of milk selling. I state that the police are targeting me at the instance of my political rival for allegedly organising bullfights. I state that the one buffalo(male), which the police alleging that I am using for organising bullfights was sold by me somewhere in the month of July, 2008. 12. I state that I have the highest respect for this Hon'ble Court as well as the Order/Directions issued by this Hon'ble Court. I state that the Order of this Hon'ble Court will be strictly implemented." 3. The Affidavit of respondent no.4, Laurence Fernandes, discloses that even he was arrested and subsequently released on bail. He is one of the supporter of respondent no.3. He has stated that he was unaware of the Court orders and, inadvertently, involved in arranging a bullfight. As far as respondent no.4 is concerned, he has apologized to the Court unconditionally for being involved in the activity alongwith respondent no.3 as a supporter. 4. In the peculiar facts of this case and when the respondents no.3 and 4 admitted to their arrest and respondent no.3 also admits to his earlier conviction, the least that was expected from them was that they would not organise a bullfight again. We do not wish to enter into controversy whether the respondent no.4 is unaware of the Order passed by this Court. The question today is that an activity which is not permitted by law was specifically organized by both individuals. Since that activity was organised and that is admitted demonstrate that the respondents no.3 and 4 have no dispute with the contents of the news report and the fact that the notice could be issued by this Court acting upon the same. In such circumstances, we do not absolve them of the consequences that would follow in law. 5. The only issue is therefore about contempt of this Court. Mr. Nadkarni urged on their behalf that both of them will not engage in bullfight or organise it in any manner whatsoever. That they will not involve themselves in any such activities within the limits of the Village Panchayat or elsewhere in the State. In the light of these statements made orally so also their Affidavits, we do not take any action in contempt as far as respondent nos.3 and 4 are concerned but clarify that merely because such an action is not initiated does not mean that there would be immunity in the prosecution, civil or criminal and such prosecution or proceedings initiated shall continue without being influenced by this order. Petition disposed off accordingly. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg