1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 141 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2009 Haji Mohammed Hussain Shirazi Mosque and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Maharashtra State and otherss ...Respondents ..... Shri G.D.Shaikh, advocate for the petitioners ..... CORAM : S.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 22nd June, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed present Contempt Petition alleging that respondent no.1 has disobeyed the status quo order passed by this court on 1.4.2009 in Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2009. 2 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2009 and obtained the order from this court on 1.4.2009, which reads as follows : “ Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, the parties will maintain status-quo as of today regarding the status of the Trustees of the petitioner no.1 – Trust. “ 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the matter under Section 36 of the Wakf Act, 1995 came up before respondent no.1 on 1.4.2009, the advocate for the petitioners filed an application before respondent no.1 requesting time to file detail say, as well as the said advocate for the petitioners informed to respondent no.1 that status-quo order has been granted by this court on 1.4.2009 and even after recording statement of the advocate to that effect, surprisingly respondent no.1 did not consider the statement of the advocate of the petitioner and passed stay order and prevented petitioner no.1 from interfering with the management of respondent no.3, thereby disobeyed the status-quo order passed by this court on 1.4.2009. 3 5. However, apparently it appears that although this court has passed order on 1.4.2009 directing to maintain status-quo regarding status of the trustees of petitioner no.1 trust in Writ Petition No. 1852 of 2009, the writ of this court to that effect was not reached before respondent no.1 nor the authenticated copy of the said order passed by this court was produced before respondent no.1 and, therefore, respondent no.1 was not made aware of the order passed by this court on 1.4.2009 in writing authentically and hence, I am of the view that there appears to be no contempt of this court as alleged. 6. Hence, in view of the afore said position, there is no substance in the contempt petition and same stands dismissed and disposed of at the admission stage itself. (S.P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/cp141.09