cp268.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ CONT. PETITION NO.268 OF 2011 JAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AURANGABAD THROUGH DIRECTOR ANDMEMBER SECRETARY VERSUS ALLAHABAD BANK JALNA ROAD AURANGABAD THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr.Shirsath P.B. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Nikam Prashant K ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: December 09, 2011 ... Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent. 2 In pursuant to the notice, reply has been filed by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there was clear order / direction by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and, therefore, the respondent Bank was under obligation to honour the said direction and allow the petitioner to operate the Bank account. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to page Nos.14 and 15 of the cp268.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ compilation and various other documents and submitted that after proper enquiry, direction was given by the Joint Charity Commissioner thereby directing the respondent Bank to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account and, therefore, if such direction given by the authority is violated and not followed, it amounts to contempt as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Bank - respondent would submit that the enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951 has to be conducted by the Joint Charity Commissioner or Assistant Charity Commissioner. However, in the present case, inquiry was conducted by the Inspector. He further submits that the Bank account has to be operated by two trustees. However, another signatory was not coming forward and, therefore, as per the requirement, no such bank account can be allowed to be operated unless other signatory comes forward. He further submits that even on careful reading of Exh.F, page 56, only opinion is expressed by the Charity Commissioner and no specific direction is given to the Bank and therefore, according to him, there is no contempt as cp268.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ such. Therefore, contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 I have given due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. From perusal of page 56 (Exh.F) i.e. a communication by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad to the respondent Bank, it is abundantly clear that the said communication cannot be construed as a direction and it can be accepted as an opinion. From careful reading of the said document, it is clear that there is no any specific direction to the bank that Satish Sampatlal Surana should be allowed to operate Bank Account. Therefore, in absence of any specific direction or order, to hold that there is willful disobedience by the respondent - Bank of the communication dated 6th June, 2011 by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, would be stretching the contempt jurisdiction too far. That apart, it appears that the mandate of Rule 7 of the relevant rules has not been followed. I find considerable substance in the argument of the Counsel for the respondent / Bank that other signatory is not coming forward to operate the account. cp268.11 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ 5 Therefore, in my considered opinion, no case is made out by the petitioner. I do not think that there is any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent Bank. Therefore, the contempt petition is devoid of merits and it stands dismissed. It is needless to clarify that if other remedy is available to the petitioner, he can avail the same, as permissible in law. Any observations in this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner while pursuing other remedy available to him in law. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*