1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2004 in WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 1998 Date of decision: 7/1/2010 For approval and signature HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see No. the fair copy of the Judgment ? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial? No. question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the No. Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important No question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ? (A.G. PARALIKAR) Private Secretary agp/office/12-04cp 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2004 in WRIT PETITION NO. 2403 OF 1998 Jagannath s/o Laxman Dhanwate, Age: 61 years, Occu: Nil, r/o.At post: Puntamba, Tal.Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Krishnakant s/o Gangaprasad, Morarka, Age: 45 years, Occu.Business and Director, Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., 1230, N.M.Wadiya Building, M.G. Road, Mumbai. 2. Ramdas s/o Rakhmaji Shinde, Age: 42 years, Occu: Manager, Shee Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., Changdeo Nagar, Tal.Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. (3. Fatesinh Deshmukh, Age 55 years, Occu. Chairman, Ninaidevi Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Kokrud, Tal. Shiral, Dist. Sangli (Discharged as per order dated 15/2/2005) (4. Subhash s/o Gajanan Kulkarni, Age 53 years, Occu. General Secretary, Kopargaon Taluka Sakhar Kamgar Sabha, R/o Changdeonagar, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.) 3 (Discharged as per order dated 15/7/2005) 5. The State of Maharashtra, through Co-op. Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Nawandar, Senior Counsel, with Mr.M.N.Nawandar, Advocate, for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. T.S.Lodhe, A.G.P., for respondent no.5. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :7/1/2010 *** ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr.Pradeep Shahane, Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. G. Nawandar and Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.G.P. for respective parties. 2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the employees and the sugar factory. We need not to advert to details thereof. The short controversy that revolves in the matter is: Based on an application Exh.B, page 4 no.20, a permission was sought in Civil Application No.4268/1998 by the respondent sugar factory to dispose of the moveables, and the Court by order dt. 3rd May, 2000, directed as under: " .... .... The applicants also seek permission to dispose of the movables listed at Exh.B. Permission to dispose of the movables listed at Exh.B and deposit the sale proceeds in the Court is also granted. Civil Application allowed in above terms and disposed of with no order as to costs." 3. Mr. Shahane, Counsel, submits, Exh.B incorporated seeking permission to dispose of raw sugar, Durbeen, Cinema Project, Air Cooler and 20 trees. However, according to the petitioners herein, in breach of the said permission, the respondents herein have sold/disposed of the property exceeding such permission as they have cut and disposed of 50 trees and also sold tins which were on the roof. They have collected an amount of Rs.4,000/- out of the sale proceeds of 50 trees. 4. In the affidavit in reply from the respondent, they have offered explanation as to under what circumstances some of the trees were 5 cut off as they were creating an obstacle in the foundation and the respondent did not intend to frustrate the orders solicited by them. Whatever was received by way of sale proceeds of the trees, was accounted for and, it was not a latent act of the respondent. 5. In order to substantiate contention of sale proceeds, a certificate dt.11.9.2002 of the Sarpanch, Group Gram Panchayat, Puntamba- Rastapur, Taluka Rahata, Dist.Ahmednagar, is tendered by Mr. Shahane, Counsel. The certificate in Marathi reads as under: 6 6. The other certificate issued by the Police Patil of the said Gram Panchayat dt. 16.9.2002 certifies that the karkhana is closed from 1984 and the Manager has sold, after demolishing the rooms, some old materials like tins, wooden logs, door frames and windows, including bricks with trees. 7. According to Mr. Shahane, it is apparent, these activities are carried by the respondent Karkhana within a period of a year of filing the present petition as the certification is dt.16.9.2002 or 11.9.2002, issued by the authorities. Reading the certificate of Sarpanch, it is more than clear, it is short of furnishing any dates of actual cutting or selling of the trees by the respondent. Unfortunately, the very petition upon which the present contempt proceedings are initiated, and the petition itself was admitted is totally blank and silent as to on what date such act of disobedience or contempt is committed by the respondent karkhana. In the proceedings of present nature where the magesty of the law is required to be put in acceleration, in terms of contempt proceedings, the rigour as conceived in Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, will have to be scrupulously adhered to. Section 20 restricts initiating action and taking cognizance for such contempt if it exceeds a period of one year from 7 the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to establish that the act of so called contempt is a continuing act or it attracts the attendance of the Court being essentially wrong. However, as stated earlier, since there are no dates, Mr.Shahane also could not specify that his petition seeking action in terms of the contempt, would be within limitation as envisaged under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 8. Since the very legal requirement is not adhered to, the contempt petition cannot further be prosecuted though it has been admitted by this Court observing prima facie breach of the orders whereby permission to dispose of the trees or moveables was granted. 9 Without further adverting to the so called contempt, the basic lacunae and the infirmity noticed in the present petition goes to the root of the matter and, consequently, the Contempt Petition No.12/2004 in Writ Petition No. 2403/1998, sans merit, it is dismissed. The respondents are discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/12-04cp