1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.183 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2270 OF 2007. (INDIAN PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs VINOD V. MENDHE & OTH. ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2008. 1. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the contempt petitioner/ original petitioner in Writ Petition No.2270/2007, Shri Khamborkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 i.e. original respondent No.4 in the writ petition and Shri Parihar, learned A.G.P. for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. This Court on 21.06.2007 expressly asked the respondents to decide the objection of the present petitioner about transferring / shifting of School of respondent No.1 to Bhandewadi and also restrained respondent No.1 from opening new school unless and until he was expressly permitted by 2 respondents No.2 and 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before such decision. On 23.07.2007 respondents No.2 and 3 have issued letter to present respondent No.1 and permitted him to transfer the school at Bhandewadi. The said permission expressly mentions Writ Petition No.2270/2007 as its subject. 3. In this background, the contempt petitioner has contended that the school was reopened though no decision in pursuance to the direction of the Division Bench was taken. The defence of respondent No.1 is that after receipt of communication dated 23rd July, 2007 under the impression that permission has been accorded, respondent No.1 started school at Bhandewadi. During hearing it has been pointed out to him that communication dated 23rd July, 2007 was withdrawn by respondents No.2 and 3 on 26.07.2007. However, respondent No.1 has contended that such withdrawal letter was never served upon respondent No.1. The matter was adjourned on one occasion to enable the parties to place correct position in this respect on record. 3 4. Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the contempt petitioner has pointed out that in view of the liberty given by this Court on earlier date, he has moved the respondents under the Right to Information Act and he is awaiting certain vital documents and information from them. 5. In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned his case is very specific. He has stated that after receipt of express permission dated 23rd July, 2007 the school has been started. His defence is that he has not received communication dated 26th July, 2007. Respondents No.2 and 3, though have chosen to file reply affidavit before this Court, have observed total silence about the communication dated 26th July, 2007 or its effect. On the contrary, they have pointed out that on 15.10.2007 the decision upon objection of the present petitioner has been taken and respondent No.1 has been permitted to act in terms of the communication dated 23.07.2007. It also appears that the school in dispute was inspected on 4th August, 2007. 4 6. In this background, it is apparent that there is nothing before this Court to show that the communication dated 26th July, 2007 was served upon respondent No.1. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon respondents No.2 and 3 to make a clean breast of the matter. They are not denying that they have issued communication dated 26th July, 2007. In these circumstances, on the subsequent date i.e. on 15.10.2007 permission granted on 23rd July, 2007 has been restored. In present circumstances, I do not find it proper to proceed against respondent No.1 in contempt. However, present position has been brought into being because of inaction on the part of respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have not taken any trouble to explain the situation even to this Court. 7. Hence, I direct respondents No.2 and 3 to pay costs of Rs.Two Thousand Five Hundred each to the present petitioner. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed of with direction to pay costs, as mentioned above. 5 8. Steno copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per rules. JUDGE RR.