1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.85 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.304 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2327 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO.971 OF 2009 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Petitioners. (Orig. Respondents) V/s Laxmi Education Society and Ors. ..... Respondents. (Orig. Petitioners) Mr. Nilesh Pawaskar, AGP with Mr. Bharat Mehta, AGP for petitioners. Mr. Sham Mehta i/b Madekar & Co. for respondents. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Petitioners are original respondents. They have filed this Contempt Petition against respondents herein, alleging that respondents have committed breach of the order passed by the Division Bench in Notice of Motion No.304 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.2327 of 2008 and in Writ Petition 2 (Lodging) No. 971 of 2009. 2. It is alleged that in para 6 of the said order which was passed on 29/05/2009, the Division Bench was pleased to direct the respondents’ Management to provide data and information for starting online admission process for Standard XI in the prescribed proforma. It is submitted that in spite of specific directions which were given by this Court by the said order, respondents herein have deliberately violated the said order and have given wrong information and have intentionally committed breach of the said order. It is submitted that, as a result of non-compliance of the said order by the respondents herein, students could not get admission in Standard XI and, therefore, a grave and irreparable loss was caused to the students of the said respondents – society. The learned AGP also submitted that in the final order which was passed in these Writ Petitions, Division Bench of this Court had noticed the said facts in its judgment and had severely criticized the respondents’ Management. He invited my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court by which the Writ Petitions were finally disposed of. He submitted that, thereafter, the present Contempt Petition has been filed against the respondents herein. 3. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Petitioners invited my attention to the proforma which was supplied to the respondents herein and submitted that instead of giving 3 the sanctioned strength and other particulars, the Management had mentioned in the said information which was given in the proforma that the college was closed down. The learned AGP also invited my attention to the other orders passed by this Court. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents herein, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents had complied with the order passed by this Court and had provided information in the prescribed proforma and, therefore, no contempt has been committed by respondents herein. He also invited my attention to the other orders passed by this Court and submitted that Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 07/08/2008 had stayed the appointment of administrator subject to the undertaking given by the petitioners in terms of para 10(b). He submitted that series of orders were passed by various courts and petitioners were directed to ensure that admissions which were given to the students in 2007 should be continued. He submitted that, however, no direction was given to the respondents herein to grant admission to the students for 2008 and 2009. He submitted that some of the parents had filed an application in the vacation and, after the said application was filed, the Division Bench had given the said direction vide order dated 29/5/2009. 5. I have heard both the Counsel for Petitioners and respondents at length. The Division Bench in its order dated 4 29/05/2009 had given the following directions:- “(i) The Management shall provide data and information for starting online admission process for Standard XI (2009-10) in the prescribed proforma which is already supplied to the management on or before 1st June without fail, without prejudice to their contentions which they have taken in their Writ Petition. (ii) Both the petitions and the notice of motion be placed together before the regular Court on 10th June, 2009.” Perusal of the said order clearly discloses that a direction was for the Management to provide data and information in the prescribed proforma. It is an admitted position that respondents’ Management had given the information in the prescribed proforma. According to petitioners herein, the information which was given was incorrect and, on the other hand, according to respondents, the information which was given in the prescribed proforma was the correct information. 5 6. In my view, taking into consideration the said order, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court. In the said order it was specifically made clear that the said information had to be given without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the Writ Petitions. Respondents, therefore, mentioned this fact that the information which was being given was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. After giving their version, in the said proforma the information was supplied. It is an admitted position that Writ Petitions have now been disposed of finally by the order of the Division Bench dated 10/12/2009. It is no doubt true that certain strictures have been passed against the respondents’ Management for the manner in which the decision to close down the Institution was taken. The Division Bench has also deprecated the action of the Management in ensuring that students do not take admission in their Institution. However, merely because certain strictures have been passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the said observations could not be treated as a finding on non-compliance of the interim order dated 29/05/2009. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned AGP appearing on behalf of petitioners. 7. Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 6