-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 164 OF 2008 Ms. Rekha Roy .. Petitioner. V/s. 1. The Union of India & anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. Sunil R. More for the Petitioner. Ms. S.V. Gajare, AGP for the State. --- CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 02ND DECEMBER,2008. DATED : 02ND DECEMBER,2008. DATED : 02ND DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the reason why the documents referred to in the order dated 18th December, 2007 have been retained despite the said order is that there is also an order dated 27.03.2006 in Misc.Application No.164/2006, permitting the CBI, ACB, Mumbai to retain the same documents for the purpose of investigations in RC 4/A/2006, which is a different matter than the one in which the order dated 18th December, 2007 has been passed. -: 2 :- 2. It was submitted that the order dated 18th December, 2007 was passed after taking the same facts into consideration and that therefore, the documents are liable to be released irrespective of the order dated 27.03.2006 passed by the Special Judge for CBI. The order does not suggest the same. If, however, that is what was intended, the petitioner is always at liberty to make an application to the learned special Judge, who passed the order dated 18th December, 2007, for clarification. In the event of the order being clarified in the petitioner’s favour nothing would remain and in the event it is clarified against the petitioner, he is at liberty to adopt appropriate proceeding to have the order dated 27th March, 2006 modified or recalled. 3. However, as long as the order dated 27th of March, 2006 is in force it is difficult to take action for contempt of the court against the respondents. Petition is accordingly disposed of. .....