:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.348 OF 2007 Nivrutti Barku Bahikar ...Petitioner. v. U.K.Mukhopadhay & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Suresh S. Shah , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.D.A.Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 13th June, 2008. DATE: 13th June, 2008. DATE: 13th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Public Interest Litigation No.58 of 2006 was disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 15th November, 2006. The order reveals that in response to the prayer for direction to the State Government to remove 244 persons, who had been illegally employed by Labour Welfare Board, the Additional Government Pleader had made a statement that one man committee of Mr.U.K.Mukhapadhyay was appointed to investigate into the affairs of the board. In view of this the Division Bench directed that the committee shall complete the investigation within a period of six months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and the one man committee was also directed that the copy of the report be supplied to the petitioner. This contempt petition was filed contending that neither the enquiry was completed within the stipulated period :2: nor any copy of the report was supplied to the respondent no.1, who is a one man committee. He has filed affidavit-in-reply. As per his affidavit, he was appointed on 20th July, 2006 but because of the voluminous documents, which required examination and inter-action with the people involved, report could not be completed within a specified period. However, the report has been completed and submitted to the Government of Maharashtra on 15th October, 2007. It appears that a copy of the report was not supplied to the petitioner and only after the statement was made by the learned APP on the previous date, a copy of the report has been forwarded to the petitioner by the Government on 9th June, 2008 by the Registered Post A.D. Copy of that report is also handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner today in the Court. 2. From the record and the circumstances, it is clear that One Man Committee had not completed enquiry within the stipulated period for which he has explained. A copy of the report was also to be given to the petitioner but that copy was not supplied because the concerned officer was under impression that before it was sent to the petitioner, approval of the Government was required, as explained in the affidavit of Rajesh B. Ghadge Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra. Anyhow, enquiry is now completed and report has also been submitted and a copy is also supplied to the :3: petitioner. It may be noted that Mr.Rajesh Ghadge has tendered unconditional apology if it is found that he has committed any contempt of the Court even unknowingly. As pointed out above, the copy of the report was not provided immediately on the ground that approval of the Government was required. In fact, no such approval was required. Anyhow, in view of the circumstances, unconditional apology of Rajesh B. Ghadge is accepted and no further action is required. 3. In the result, contempt petition stands disposed off. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)