*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.201 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7052 OF 2004 Mohan Babli Ransing. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents ........... Mr.C.K.Bhangoji, Advocate i/b Mr.R.K.Mendalkar, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I.I. Patel, AGP for the Respondents No.1 and 2. .......... CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. Date : 05th February, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State. 2 By this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act the Petitioner is seeking action against the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 for not complying with the judgment and order dated 14.09.2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7052/2004, which was filed by the present Petitioner challenging invalidation of his caste certificate. 3 The learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.P.Shah & S.U.Kamdar, JJ) by order dated 14.09.2004 in Writ Petition No.7052/2004 along with other connected matters including Writ Petition No. 6048/2004 decided the issue about how to consider the facts and *2* circumstances of the matter at the time of deciding the tribe certificates of “Thakkar” and/or “Thakur” castes and set aside the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee and remanded the matters back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision. It is the case of the learned counsel for Petitioner that while deciding the application of Petitioner for verification of tribe claim as “Thakkar” which is Scheduled Tribe, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane has failed and neglected to consider the guidelines framed by this Court in the order dated 14.09.2004 and thus, the Members of the said Scrutiny Committee have committed contempt of this Court. Therefore, action be taken against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4 It is to be noted that against the fresh order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner has already preferred Writ Petition No.7320/2009 and the same is admitted by this Court on 01.12.2009. In any case after going through the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 23.12.2008 and the order passed by this Court dated 14.09.2004, it is clear that the Scrutiny Committee has decided the tribe claim of Petitioner on its own merits by considering the judgment of this Court dated 14.09.2004. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that the Scrutiny Committee has decided the Petitioner’s application for verification of his tribe claim on its own merits and the said order of Scrutiny Committee is already challenged by the Petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.7320/2009 and the said Writ Petition is already admitted. 5 It is to be noted that the Madras High Court, in the matter of A.Ramalingam Vs. V.V.Mahalinga Nadar reported in AIR 1966 Madras 21, held :- *3* “Essentially, contempt of Court is a matter which concerns the administration of justice and the dignity and authority of judicial tribunals; to enable the court to take such action as it deems expedient to adopt, a party can bring to its notice, facts constituting what may appear to amount to contempt of Court. Essentially, however, it is not a right of a party to be invoked for the redressal of his grievances. It is not also a mode by which the rights of a party, adjudicated upon by a tribunal can be enforced against another party. Only when the facts on the record, ex-facie, support a proceeding in contempt that it would be in the interests of justice to exercise contempt jurisdiction, or to commence to do so. Any detailed enquiry must be left to the Court which had passed the order and which presumably is fully acquainted with the subject matter of its own decree. When the matter relates to infringement of a decree or decreetal order embodying rights, as between parties, it is clearly inexpedient to invoke and exercise contempt jurisdiction, in essence, as a mode of executing that decree or merely because other remedies may take time or are more circumlocutory in character.” 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the present Contempt Petition and the same is dismissed. (K.K.TATED, J.)