1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.111 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.4032 of 2008 (D) (Sheikh Gulab Sheikh Atta v. Shri A.G. Sheikh, Secretary, Teachers Education Society, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri R.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 24 st September, 2010 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience/breach of the judgment and order dated 11-2-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4032 of 2008, the operative part of which the contempt is complained of is reproduced below : “5(b) Petitioner nos.1 and 2 shall deposit amount of salary of respondent no.1 with effect from 14.07.2006 till 31.07.2008 with this Court within four weeks from this date and after that amount is deposited, 50% amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by respondent no.1. Remaining 50% amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in Nationalised Bank initially for a period of six months. That amount would be disbursed as per the order which may be 2 passed finally after the enquiry. The fresh enquiry may be held only after that amount is deposited.” 2. The aforesaid order was not complied with and hence the petitioner was requited to file the instant contempt petition. 3. On 15-2-2010, this Court has passed an order as under : “The learned counsel informs the court that the Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents in the Apex Court has been dismissed. In that circumstance, time of three weeks is granted to the respondents to deposit 50% of the amount of salary for the period 14 th of July, 2006 till 31 st July, 2008 in this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of salary for the period is approximately of Rs.7,20,000/-. Respondents no.1 and 2 are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- in this court on or before 8/3/2010. S.O. to 8/3/2010.” 4. Accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have deposited an amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. This Court, by an order dated 9-4-2010, has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/-. So far as the balance amount of 50% is concerned, by an order dated 23-7-2010, this Court has permitted the respondents to deposit the said amount along with the costs of Rs.5,000/-. It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the costs of Rs.5,000/- were paid to the petitioner on 4-8-2010 and the balance amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been deposited in this Court on 22-9-2010. 5. In view of clause (b) of para 5 of the order 3 dated 11-2-2009, reproduced above, the office is directed to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,60,000/- in a fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of six months. 6. Now the order dated 11-2-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4032 of 2008 stands complied with. 7. Shri Madkholkar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, however, urged that since the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, as directed by this Court by an order dated 11-2-2009, the respondents should not be permitted to hold an enquiry. According to him, the condition was not complied with within the stipulated period and hence it is not permissible for the respondents to go ahead with the enquiry. In view of the fact that this Court has passed an order on 23-7-2010 permitting the respondents to deposit the amount, it is not possible to accept the said contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the balance amount of 50% deposited in this Court. However, in view of the order dated 11-2-2009 passed by this Court, the said permission cannot be granted. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open for the petitioner to raise an objection before the Enquiry Committee that it is not permissible to go ahead with the enquiry in view of the fact that the respondents have not deposited the amount within the stipulated period, and if ultimately the petitioner is exonerated from the charges levelled against him, the appropriate orders will be passed by this Court upon such application being moved by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to proceed 4 with the contempt petition. The proceedings of contempt petition are, therefore, dropped. Judge pdl