1 cp183.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.183 OF 2008 Sunil Madhukar Jagtap ...Petitioner vs. Dr.Bhakti Umarji, Principal District Institute of Education and Training Lonikalbhor, Pune & ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioner Mr.Uday Warunjikar for respondent no.3 Mr.S.D.Rairikar, A.G.P for the respondent no.8 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 15,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The breach which is alleged in this contempt petition is of the Judgment and order dated 12 th March 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. The petition was disposed of in terms of interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (D). 2 The prayer clause (D) reads thus : page 40-41 (D)that pending final disposal of this Writ Petition as by way of interim relief temporary injunction be issued restraining the Respondents from giving intake capacity to any D.Ed. College in State of Maharashtra in excess of the capacity approved by NCTE and give the admission to the students and/or take examination of the students who are given the admission in excess of the quota approved by 2 cp183.sxw NCTE Bhopal. 3 The material averments in the petition are found in paragraphs 8 and 9. The allegation is that though intake quota of the institution of the first respondent was 40, the admissions were granted to 50 students. There is an affidavit filed by the Regional Director of NCTE stating that by communication dated 18 th May 2004, the approved intake capacity of the first respondent institution was fixed at 50. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to what is set out in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 14 th June 2009. He also pointed out that a specific contention has been raised by the petitioner by another affidavit dated 4 th October 2008 that the alleged communication dated 18 th May 2004 annexed to the affidavit of the Regional Director of NCTE by the third respondent is fabricated. He, therefore, submitted that this is a case where prima facie breach of order of the Division Bench has been established. 5 I have considered the submissions. The contempt is founded on the allegation that the approved intake capacity of the institution was 40 and that 50 students were admitted by the institution. The third respondent NCTE has filed an affidavit stating that the approved intake capacity was increased to 50 and the said decision was communicated by the communication dated 18 th June 2004. Now, the contention of the petitioner is that the said communication is fabricated. In terms of the order dated 16 th July 2010 passed by this Court, the original minutes of the thee meetings namely 59 th, 62 nd and 71 st meetings of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE were 3 cp183.sxw produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the third respondent. The order dated 29 th October 2010 notes that the original record was kept with the Advocate for the third respondent and he was permitted to return the record to his client. 6 It is not in dispute that the inspection of the original minutes of the 59 th meeting of the Western Regional Committee of NCTE was given to the Advocate for the petitioner. A xerox copy of the minutes is placed on record which discloses that a resolution was passed in the 59 th Meeting increasing the intake capacity of the concerned institution to 50. 7 The grievance in the Contempt Petition is confined to action of the 1 st and 2 nd respondent pertaining to one particular institution. The scope of the contempt petition cannot be enlarged on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner in further affidavits. If the grievance of the petitioner that there is some other breach, it is for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings. In the present petition, there is material on record to show that the intake capacity of the concerned institution was enhanced to 50. Therefore, this is not a case where the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the concerned respondents. 8 Subject to what is observed above, no case is made out for initiating action. 9 Petition is disposed of by discharging the notice issued earlier. JUDGE