1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.244 OF 2009 Sudhakar B. Joshi & Ors. ..Petitioners versus Vasantlal Popatlal Gandhi & Others ..Respondents Mr.Bhushan A. Walimbe for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 17th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. This petition was on board for admission. I have perused the text of the contempt petition and I have heard learned Advocate Mr. Walimbe. 2. A perusal of the Contempt Petition goes to show that the petitioners allege certain acts having committed by the respondents which in the opinion of the petitioners constitute contempt as according to the petitioners the appropriate 2 notice of meeting where major policy decisions concerning the Credit Society have to be taken was not given. 3. I have perused the order dated 14.10.2008. By item No.4 of the said Order it is directed that the respondents shall take major policy decisions after notice to the respondents. This will mean that if the present respondents are to take any decision which is a major policy decision, notice of the same is to be given to the present petitioners. 4. After having considered the matter as a whole, I observe that the term All Major Policy Decision as a term having wide amplitude and in a given case it is possible that the petitioners may allege that the particular policy decision is a major policy decision, whereas the respondent may contest the said proposition and say that because they though that the said policy decision is not a major policy decision, they did not give notice to 3 the petitioner. 5. In my view, once the term Major Police Decision is clarified so as to include specific case or specific items which can be considered as major policy decision, then it can be well known to the petitioners as well as the respondents as to what constitutes Major Police Decision and in what case notice is required to be given to the petitioners. Once this position is finalised, respective parties would be able to act and then the parties can take stances. 6. After hearing this observation, learned Advocate Mr. Walimbe submitted that he will move the learned Judge who has passed an Order on 14.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.6735 of 2008 and have clarification of the term Major Policy Decision . He submitted that after seeking the said clarification petitioners be permitted to file appropriate proceedings if they wish to do so. He prayed for withdrawal of this petition 4 with liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. 7. In view of the observation regarding the term All Major Policy Decision the petitioners are permitted to withdraw this petition. They may obtain clarification from the learned Judge who has passed an Order dated 14.10.2008 and thereafter if though fit they may take steps to ventilate their grievances in appropriate forum. No views are expressed on the allegations which are set out in this petition. No specific liberty is required to be granted to the petitioner to institute a fresh petition on the basis of the facts narrated in this petition. The petitioners are free to take the appropriate decision. 8. Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)