FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.246 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4707 of 2006 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ This contempt petition is filed alleging therein that the respondents No.1 to 4 have, in utter disregard to the undertaking given before this Court that till the matter is heard for admission, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner, have published the advertisement keeping the property of the petitioner under auction. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the paper publication for auctioning the property of the petitioner was made on 26th June, 2010 indicating therein the date of auction as 27th July, 2010. However, the Counsel further submits that on the scheduled date, no auction took place. 2 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the undertaking of the Counsel for the respondents Bank in Writ Petition No.4707 of 2006 on 5.9.2006, the respondents should not have taken steps to auction the property of the petitioner. Therefore, in the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner, the contempt petition requires consideration. 3 Perusal of the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed in Writ Petition No.4707 of 2006 shows that the statement made on behalf of the Bank respondents was made on 5th September, 2006 and it was assured to this Court that no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioner till the matter is heard for admission. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 5.4.2007, it appears that the matter was heard on the said date for admission and the matter was admitted and hearing was expedited. However, no interim relief was granted. 4 Upon perusal of the order dated 5th April, 2007 and in the light of the dates on which the property was put to auction, I do not think that the respondents No.1 to 4 have violated the order of this Court. In fact, the undertaking which was given by the learned Counsel for the Bank in the said writ petition was till the matter was heard for admission. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the respondents 1 to 4 have violated the order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4707 of 2006. 5 In view of this, there is no substance in the contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Needless to mention that if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to file an application in the pending writ petition, this order in the contempt petition will not come in the way of the petitioner. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 07.09.2010. kadam/*