1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 347 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 347 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 347 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5066 OF 2005 Mahadev Dnyaneshwar Pawar & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Manohar N. Veer & Ors. ... Respondentrs Mr.Sandeep S.Salunkhe, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for the respondents Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 6th June, 2008. DATE: 6th June, 2008. DATE: 6th June, 2008. P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners were working as teachers with respondent No.5 School run by the respondent No.4. The School was started in July 1999 on no grant basis. Later on in September 2004, the State Government 2 sanctioned 40% grant to the School. The approval was also granted to the services of the teachers. However, by an order dated 30.4.2005, the Education Officer had revoked the grant. In such circumstances, in all 10 teachers, including the present petitioners, filed Writ Petition No.5066 of 2005 impugning the order dated 30.4.2005 passed by the Education Officer. That petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 9.8.2005. It was conceded on behalf of the Government that the said order was passed by the Education Officer without giving opportunity of hearing to the other side. In view of this, the said order was set aside. This Court made the following observations in para 3 :- "3. Mr. Sonawane, learned AGP fairly conceded that no prior notice was given to the Petitioners and the impugned order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. The impugned order of the Education officer is thus totally unsustainable in law. We therefore quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2005. However, it would be open for the Education officer to take appropriate action in respect of the Respondent School in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 3 Petitioners as well as the management. All contentions are left open to the parties. The Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith release salary grant of the Petitioners. Petition is accordingly disposed of." 3. Thereafter, C.A. No.2016 of 2006 was filed by the State of Maharashtra and others seeking modification of the order dated 9.8.2005. The order was slightly modified and the order dated 9.8.2005 was treated as an interim order. It appears that in view of the order dated 9.8.2005, the Education Officer had passed fresh order dated 14.10.2006 and the petitioners in the Writ Petition sought to impugne and to challenge that order also. On 20.2.2007, the Writ Petition was finally disposed of. The Division Bench observed in para 4 as follows :- "4. Having heard the learned counsel, in our opinion, even though the order dated 9.8.2005 is not to be treated as final, nonetheless the Education Officer was duty bound to comply with the order. We therefore, direct the Education Officer to dispose of the issue of approval within eight weeks from today irrespective of the pending Appeals." 4 4. The petitioners have filed the Contempt Petition alleging that the Education Officer had not released the grant of salary as per the order dated 9.8.2005 and secondly he had also failed to dispose of the issue of approval within 8 weeks from the order dated 20.2.2007 and thus the respondent No.1 - Education Officer had committed contempt of the Court. The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit in reply. 5. If all the three orders dated 9.8.2005, 18.1.2007 and 20.2.2007 are read together, it would appear that there were, in fact, two directions in the order dated 9.8.2005, one was about release of the grant and the second was to hear the parties and to dispose of the issue of approval. As noted above, in the Civil Application NO.2016 of 2006, the State of Maharashtra has sought modification of the order dated 9.8.2005. The Division Bench had deleted the last two sentences from para 3 of the order dated 9.8.2005. The last two sentences of the said para are as follows :- "The Respondent No.1 is directed to forthwith release salary grant of the Petitioners. Petition is accordingly disposed of." 5 The result of deletion of the sentences was that there was no more any order to release the salary grant and secondly, the writ petition was not treated as disposed of, but that order was treated only as interim and the writ petition was kept pending for final hearing. As a result of this, it must be said that the order dated 9.8.2005 to release the salary grant having been deleted by the subsequent order was as good as non-existent and, therefore, the question of compliance of that order would not arise. On that count, i.e. for non-release of the salary grant, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 had committed contempt of the Court. 6. It is material to note that in the final order dated 20.2.2007, when the writ petition was disposed of, the Division Bench nowhere touched the question of release of salary grant. The Division Bench only observed that even though the order dated 9.8.2005 was not treated as final but as interim, the Education Officer was duty bound to comply with the order. As such he was bound to hold enquiry in respect of the issue about approval and that is why in the last sentence of para 4, the Division Bench directed the Education Officer to dispose of the issue of approval within 8 weeks from that date. 6 7. In view of the order dated 20.2.2007, the Education Officer was bound to dispose of the issue of approval within 8 weeks. However, the final order appears to have been passed by the Education Officer on 22.11.2007. About the delay, the respondent No.1 - Education Officer has filed two affidavits. In the first affidavit dated 24.10.2007, he has explained the circumstances about the delay. He has pointed out that earlier one Mr. V.G.Hake was the Education Officer and he was transferred in May, 2007. Thereafter, the additional charge of the post was with the Deputy Education Officer. The respondent no.1 had taken over the charge of this post on 1.9.2007 and the order of the Court was brought to his notice on 2.10.2007. He explained that it was necessary to issue notices and to hear parties before the issue could be decided. Therefore, it would take some time. By his second affidavit dated 4.12.2007, he stated that the issue was already disposed of by passing the order dated 22.11.2007. Taking into consideration these circumstances, it appears that even though there was delay in disposal of that issue, as far as respondent No.1 is concerned, he actually disposed of within 8 weeks from the date on which the order of the Court was brought to his notice and there was no inordinate delay on his part. Hence, I find that neither there was any intention of disobedience nor any delay on the part of 7 the respondent No.1. The delay was caused in disposing of the issue because of the circumstances noted above. Therefore, I find that there is no reason or justification to take any action against any of the respondents for contempt of the Court. 8. In the result, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)