1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2009 IN L.P.A.NO.275 OF 2008 IN W.P.NO.2659 OF 2008(D) (TULSIDAS SHIVRAMJI TAGADE & OTH. VS. DHARAMDAS SHIVRAMJI TAGADE & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri Mohan B. Turankar, Advocate for Respondents No.1 to 6. CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010. 1. Heard Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Turankar, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 25th June, 2009 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 275/2008 arising out of Writ Petition No.2659 of 2008. 3. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Division Bench of this Court had clarified by the judgment dated 25th June, 2009 that only the trustees who were part of first board of trustees were directed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner to manage the affairs of the trust during the pendency of Change Report Enquiry bearing No.265/2007. The Court further clarified that there was no warrant for 2 assuming that the trustees, whose names appear in the Change Report Enquiry No.265/2007 but who were not in the first Board of Trustees, were also directed to manage the affairs of the trust only because their names were mentioned in the change report. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and clarification of the same by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.275 of 2008, respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 were also managing the affairs of the trust and respondents No.1, 2 and 3 were permitting them to manage the affairs of the trust in willful disregard to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 25th June, 2009. 5. Respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating therein that three appointed trustees whose names appear in the Change Report Enquiry No.265/2007 will not be permitted to participate in the management of the trust till disposal of the Change Report Enquiry No.265/2007. Respondent No.1 has further stated in the affidavit that on reading of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, respondents had believed that the three members, whose names appear in the Change Report Enquiry No.265/2007, were also permitted to administer the trust and hence, there was no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Respondent No.1 has tendered an unconditional apology and has further stated that three persons, whose 3 names appear in Change Report Enquiry No.265/2007 would not be allowed to participate in the management till disposal of the Change Report Enquiry. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the order of which the contempt is alleged, along with the affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it appears that there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal and the respondents were permitting three other members to participate in the management in view of the mistaken belief. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in view of the affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..