1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2009 Shri. Pandurang Ambadasarao Ratnalikar ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. P.A. Ratnalikar - Petitioner in person - Present. Shri. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Ratnalikar, the party in person - the petitioner. 2. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.7.2008, passed in Writ Petition No. 7789/2006, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit T.A. bills to the Government and the Government was further directed to process the T.A. bills and decide the same in accordance with the law. 3. Shri. Ratnalikar, the party in person, submits that he had 2 submitted T.A. bills for an amount of Rs. 71205/- plus Rs. 8000/- towards the provisional fees of the doctor. However, the respondent has filed an affidavit of the Chief Administrative Officer, Akola Circle, Akola dated 11.11.2009, wherein it has been stated that the amount of Rs. 11,675/- has been sanctioned by the Government, as against the aforesaid bills submitted by the petitioner and the cheque to that effect was drawn and forwarded to the petitioner under covering letter dated 21.7.2009, which the petitioner has refused. Shri. Ratnalikar submitted that this Court had directed the respondents to decide the T.A. bills in accordance with law. According to him, the amount, if calculated, in accordance with the provisions of Rules 532, 536 and 538 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, then the amount would come to Rs. 71,205/- plus Rs. 8000/-, whereas according to the respondents, the petitioner is entitled only to Rs. 11675/-, which according to Shri. Ratnalikar is not in accordance with law. 4. There is no direction issued by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 71,205/- plus Rs. 8000/- to the petitioner. The direction is to decide the T.A. bills submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. The dispute, therefore, arises that whether the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 71,205/- plus Rs. 8000/-, as has been claimed by him. In my opinion, such a dispute cannot be entertained in the contempt petition. The dispute pertains to the correctness of the decision of the State Government. The 3 petitioner is at liberty to challenge the such decision in the appropriate forum. 5. In the result, there is no substance in the present contempt petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to adopt such appropriate remedies, as are available to him to recover the amount of Rs. 71,205/- plus Rs.8000/-, or such other amount, which according to him, is due and payable to him. None of the observations made by this Court in this order shall come in the way of the petitioner, in making such claim. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp132.09