IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.329 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8900 OF 2004 Satish Vasudev Naik & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ...... Mr.Y.E.Mooman i/b Mr.Suresh R.Padwal for Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 3. Mr.Kunal Cheema i/b Mr.Y.M.Chaudhary for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 1, 2007. MARCH 1, 2007. MARCH 1, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents appended to the Contempt Petition as well as the pleadings in Civil Application No.728 of 2006 and Civil Application (Lodging) No.6633 of 2006. : 2 : 2. After going through the orders passed on 10th March 2006 and 2nd May 2006, in my opinion, it is not possible to entertain the grievance of the Petitioners, so as to initiate contempt action against the then Divisional Joint Registrar Mr.Sheshrao Sangle. It is seen that, on the allegation made in the present Contempt Petition, on the same basis, this Court in its order dated 10th March 2006 called upon the then Divisional Joint Registrar to show-cause. Consequent thereto, the then Divisional Joint Registrar Mr.Sangle filed further affidavit dated 23rd March 2006. The stand taken in this affidavit, in particular, Para 3 thereof, is consistent with the stand taken in the present Contempt Petition on affidavit dated 4th April 2006 and further affidavit dated 23rd February 2007. As the very stand was before this Court, and the Court having granted further time for disposal of the proceeding pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar, the delay in non-disposal of the said proceedings for the reasons disclosed, implicitly stood condoned. : 3 : 3. It is true that in the order dated 2nd May 2006, the Court has not adverted to the case made out by the then Divisional Joint Registrar Mr.Sangle, which stand is reiterated in the present proceedings. However, as the Court has not taken any cognizance of such lapse on the earlier occasion, it will be inappropriate for me to initiate action against the said Divisional Joint Registrar Mr.Sangle on the same grievance of the Petitioners. 4. Assuming that the matter was required to be considered on merits, after having gone through the pleadings in all these matters and perusing the original correspondence and the outward register, which was produced by the contemner Mr.Sangle, I am of the view that the stand taken by Mr.Sangle is plausible explanation. Even for this reason, it is unnecessary to precipitate the matter any further. In other words, it is not a case of wilful disobedience of the order of Court by the Divisional Joint Registrar Mr.Sangle. The said Officer is, however, advised that in future, he should be more careful whenever he is required to : 4 : deal with matters directed to be disposed of by the Court within specified time. 5. With these observations, Petition disposed of. Notices issued to the contemners stand discharged. 6. Original record submitted to this Court which was kept in sealed cover be returned to the learned A.G.P. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.