FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.189 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ It is alleged in this Contempt Petition that the respondent No.1, in willful disobedience of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 9th March, 2010 in C.R.A. NO.25 of 2010, issued communication dated 1st June, 2010 at Exh. P-3 to Regional Wakf Officer, Pune. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in spite of specific direction to the Chief Executive Officer, who was respondent No.1 in Civil Revision Application that the order of the Chief Executive Officer, which was subject in the applications, stayed by this Court, to remain in force till the learned Presiding Officer decides Exh.5 in both the applications, pending before him, communication at Exh.P-3 has been issued by Respondent No.1. In substance, the contention of the petitioner is that the communication dated 1st June, 2010 at Exh.P-3 is in utter disregard and willful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 9th March, 2010 in Civil Revision Application No.25/2010. 2 The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 invited my attention to the affidavit-in- reply filed by respondent NO.1 and more particularly, paragraph 5 and 7 and submitted that there was no intention on the part of the respondent No.1 to disobey the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Due to inadvertence and heavy work load, the mistake has happened and the communication at Exh.P-3 has been issued by him. Though it is not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the respondent No.1, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 makes a statement that respondent No.1 has not acted upon the said communication at Exh.P-3 or he will not act upon the said communication till Exh.5 is decided by the Presiding Officer. The respondent NO.1 has tendered unconditional apology in para 9 of the affidavit. 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has admitted in his affidavit that there is disobedience of the order and, therefore, the respondent NO.1 should be strictly dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. 4 Taking into consideration the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and more particularly, paragraphs 5 and 7 of the said affidavit, and the unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.1 and further the respondent no.1 has not acted upon the communication at Exh.P-3, I am of the opinion that this contempt petition can be disposed of and no further adjudication of the same is necessary. While considering or interpreting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, if the alleged contemnor has tendered unconditional apology, the Court should be generous in construing the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and should not stretch the contempt proceedings any further. 5 In the light of above, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. However, the respondent No.1 shall strictly observe the orders passed by the competent courts in future. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 07.10.2010. PLK/*