1 CP NO.175/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2005 In WP/5219/2001 ... M/s Rajureshwar & Associates Through its Partner Abhay s/o Kachrulal Abad, Age 42 years, Occ: Business And Agriculture r/o Nal Galli, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through A.P.Sinha Principal Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. 2. Mrs. Shukla The Director, Handloom and Power Loom and Textile Department, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur. 3. Shri Vasant Salunke, Liquidator, Aurangabad Zilla Kapus Utpadak Soot Girni Ltd. Garkheda, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.A.B.Kale, learned Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.H.Dighe, AGP for Respondents State. Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar, Adv., for respondent no. 3. Respondent nos. 2 and 4 served. 2 CP NO.175/2005 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 22, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Counsel. 2. Contempt Petition is admitted on 18.8.2006. Both the learned Counsel addressed on merits and demerits of the contempt petition. Ultimately, both have submitted, the point of maintainability of contempt petition raised by the respondent State and also the liquidator should be heard and decided. 3. Though a chequered history of litigation projects, the matter can be reconciled. Disposal of certain Government property was questioned in writ petition No.5219/2001. The Division Bench Court set aside the Government decision to dispose of the property and directed the respondent to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner with simple interest of 11 per cent per annum. 4. The matter was carried by the petitioner to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8539/2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on July 5, 2004, dismissed the Civil Appeal with continuation of directions of payment of interest for the period during which the amount remained 3 CP NO.175/2005 with the respondent within a period of four months. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the breach alleged is of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in said Civil Appeal No.8539/2002 and, consequently, if the petitioner feels aggrieved, he should approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5219/2009 are merged in Civil Appeal No.8539/2002, this Court will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the contempt petition. 7. The legal position is, indeed, elaborately discussed in a reported judgment of this Court in Manubhai Pragji Vashi v. The State of Maharashtra and others ( 1997(1) Bom.C.R. 35). Hon'ble Supreme Court, in terms of Article 129 of the Constitution of India is the Court of Record and has all the powers of such a Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 8. As regards the High Court to be a Court of Record, Article 215 of the Constitution makes a provision that every High Court shall be a Court of Record and shall have all the powers of 4 CP NO.175/2005 such Court, including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 9. The position is clarified if one peruses Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as under: "10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercises in respect of contempts of itself: Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code." Reading Section 10, it is explicit that the powers of High Court envisage exercise of same jurisdiction, power and authority to punish in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to it and of itself. 10. Legal position is again explained by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ( 1998 (2) BOM.C.R. 474). The Division Bench has also 5 CP NO.175/2005 referred afore stated judgment of the learned Single Judge and observed that the contempt petition is not maintainable and, it was, accordingly, rejected in limine. 11. The petitioner, to repeat, claims contempt of orders of Honourable Supreme Court in respect of payment of interest at the rate of 11 per cent and the mistake in calculation for the period in which temporarily the amount was invested on the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These aspects would have to be urged before Hon'ble Supreme Court, and not in High Court. 12. Taking survey of all these facts, the contempt petition would not be maintainable before this Court. Consequently, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. Heard. The petitioners are at liberty to exhaust appropriate remedies, permissible in law. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/175-05cp