1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.262 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.1744 of 2009 (D) (Narayan s/o Gujabrao Bhoyar v. Rajudas s/o Laxmanrao Jadhav and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 20 th April, 2011 Heard Shri Dhatrak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The complaint in this contempt petition is two-fold, viz. (i) that in passing the order of disqualification dated 28-5-2010 by the respondent No.1, he has acted in breach of the interim order dated 9-4-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1744 of 2009 ; and (ii) that the respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit dated 5-10-2010 in the said writ petition posing himself to be the Manager of the respondent No.1-Society. So far as passing of the order of disqualification dated 28-5-2010 is concerned, the same was an event, subsequent to passing of an interim order dated 9-4-2010 in Writ Petition 2 No.1744 of 2009. Though this Court had stayed earlier order of disqualification passed on 15-10-2008, passing of fresh order of disqualification was not prohibited. The petitioner was disqualified by an order dated 28-5-2010. Although in the said writ petition, by way of amendment, the order of disqualification dated 28-5-2010 was challenged, this Court had refused to entertain the challenge raised by the petitioner, leaving it open to him to challenge the resolution and communication passed by the respondent-Society in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Such appropriate proceedings have been instituted by the petitioner and those are pending. In view of this, the question of passing the order of disqualification dated 28-5-2010 in breach of the interim order dated 9-4-2010 passed by this Court, does not arise. As regards the filing of an affidavit dated 5-10-2010 by the respondent No.2 in the said writ petition, posing himself to be the Manager of the respondent-Society, is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the entire reply filed by the respondent No.2. In the said reply, the respondent No.2 has claimed himself to be an elected Secretary of the respondent-Society. There is nothing on record to show that he has opposed the petition, posing himself to be the Manager of the respondent-Society. It is true that he has filed the reply on behalf of the respondent No.1-Yeotmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Yeotmal. The petitioner has nowhere disclosed the name of the Manager of the said Society. When the reply was filed before this Court, no objection was taken to the authority of the respondent to oppose the petition. At any rate, even if the respondent No.2 filed the reply claiming that he is representing the respondent-Society, that does not mean that 3 he posed himself to be the Manager of the Society. In view of this, no case is made out to proceed with this contempt petition. It has to be observed that the process of this Court cannot be used for settling personal scores by the parties. This is a case where, it seems that these proceedings have been instituted to settle the personal scores and hence amounts to an abuse of the process of Court. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred). Judge pdl