1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 45/2009 (Harish Antaram Chandak & others VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willfully flouting the orders passed by the High Court on 07.10.2008 in Writ Petition No.4381/2008. It appears that by an order dated 07.10.2008, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo as regards possession as on 07.10.2008. From the averments made in the contempt petition, no case for issuance of notice under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is made out. The order, of which the contempt is alleged, is passed by the High Court on 07.10.2008. The petitioners have averred in paragraph 5 of the 2 contempt petition that after the passing of the order of which the contempt is alleged, the Tahsildar, by an order dated 19.09.2008 decided the revenue case and confiscated the said property. It is, thus, clear from the averments made in paragraph 5 that the order of Tahsildar preceded the order, which is passed by the High Court and, of which the contempt is alleged. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of Tahsildar, dated 19.09.2008, before the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer decided the appeal on 24.11.2008 and maintained the order passed by the Tahsildar. It is the case of the petitioner that the orders are passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer in violation of the order passed by the High Court on 07.10.2008. It is clear from the averments made in the contempt petition that the order of the Tahsildar was passed on 19.09.2008 and the order, of which the 3 contempt is alleged, was passed on 07.10.2008. It, therefore, cannot be said that the Tahsildar has willfully disobeyed the order passed by the High Court on 07.10.2008. Moreover, by the order dated 07.10.2008 of which the contempt is alleged, the parties were directed to maintain status quo of possession as on 07.10.2008 and it is not averred by the petitioners in this contempt petition that the Tahsildar or the Sub Divisional Officer has illegally obtained the possession from the petitioners after the passing of the order dated 07.10.2008. No case has been made out by the petitioner for initiating any action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE