1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.208/2009 in W.P.No.4106/2003, 4473/2003 & LPA No. 247/2006 in WP No.4106/2003) and LPA269/2006 in WP No. 4473/2003 and LPANo.168/2008 in WP No.4473/2008 Navin Navalchand Chaudhary Vs. Anil Champalal Chaudhary and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. M.V. Samarth, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.Y. . Kapgate, Adv. for the respondent no.1 CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th JUNE 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties extensively. 1] The dispute with the Management of the Education institution has landed in chequered history of litigation between members of the Trust, which was tried to be addressed in Writ Petition No. 4473/2003. The orders in the writ petitions were subjected to challenge in LPA No. 269/2006 and by order dated 23.4.2009, the learned LPA Court, issued directions, as reflected in paragraph 3 of the said order, which reads as under:- “The matter is taken up for final hearing. After hearing the matter for some, it appears that the matter can be resolved by giving following directions:- 2 (i) The directions of learned Single Judge in paragraph no.22 of the judgment are hereby upheld. As a result, the existing trustees shall continue to manage the affairs of the Trust as ad hoc body till the Joint Charity Commissioner appoints other trustees so as to enable to the Executive Committee to meet and to conduct its affairs. This shall be done by Joint Charity Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Till the elections for constitution of Executive Committee are held, the existing Managing Committee shall continue to function as ad-hoc committee and shall not take any major policy decisions and shall look after only day-to-day affairs. In view of the aforesaid directions, it is not necessary to decide whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner has powers or duty to refer any matter to the Joint Charity Commissioner for decision.” 2] The petitioner feels that in spite of there being orders, the respondent herein/ alleged contemnor in defiance of orders of this Court is posing himself as Chairman/President of the Trust and carrying activities and hence, he feels there is contempt. 3 3] The detailed affidavit-reply is tendered. The first paragraph deal with unconditional apology from respondent no.1 to the events that has taken place. This unconditional apology, by itself, will not mean to construe that there is defiance or disobedience of the orders by respondent of this Court. It is humility at the command of the respondent which ventured through such recitals and being surfaced, consequently, unwarranted much capital has been made by petitioner. 4] The fact remains, even the Adhoc Committee appointed, in the law, assumes by orders of LPA Court, the present alleged contemnor was a member and was earlier President of the Trust. Any communication made by him to other members, is in the interest of trust, it does not demand display any disobedience of the orders of this Court. 5] That apart, the orders of the Joint Charity Commissioner were tried and came to be subject of challenge in the First Appeal No. 1193/2009. There operates order of status quo. The present petitioner is respondent no.8 in the said proceeding. It may be that the orders of status quo are of subsequent event as the order dated 12th October 2009. However, this quite itself indicates the alleged contemnor acted as Chairman/President of the Trust. He does not seem to 4 have any deliberate intention to flout and defy the directions of this court or to create unto himself any authority against the order of this Court. 6] The reliance to the judgment placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai and others Vs. Patel ChandrakantDhulabhai & others (AIR 2008 SC 3016) will not be applicable to the facts. 7] The above details demonstrate that there is no defiance to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition and LPA. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of. The observations made in the order will be restricted to the present proceeding only. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.