IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION (MAIN) NO. 21 OF 2007 CABLE (INDIA) CORP THROUGH PROPRIETOR MR TEJINDER SINGH ... Petitioner Versus CAPTAIN G. M. GOPAKUMAR, COMMANDING OFFICER INS HANSA AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. K. Kakodkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rama Rivankar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 7th August, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. This application has been filed to initiate proceedings for contempt for disobedience of the Order dated 14-6-2007 which, inter alia, provided that:- "Till a contractor is chosen, the appellant shall continue to provide cable TV services on the same terms he is doing today, without thereby claiming any equity in the matter of allotment of tender". Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.1 to 4 committed breach of the said Order by not allowing six people to go and service cable TVs connections and by allowing one Mr. Richard D'Costa i.e. Respondent No.5 to dismantle Petitioner's connections. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 by Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General that they always allowed one person to service the TV connections provided by the Petitioner in accordance with the said Order dated 14-6-2007. Learned Assistant Solicitor General further submits that the contract with the Petitioner had come to an end on 1-9-2004 and thereafter the Petitioner was servicing under an alleged oral agreement, the terms of which are uncertain. He further submits that prior to the Order dated 14-6-2007, Respondent No.5 had already provided certain service connections from July, 2006 and it is those connections which the said Richard D'Costa was servicing as alleged by the Petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.5 also submits that Respondent No.5 had provided about 100 new connections in July, 2006, which Respondent No.5 was bound to service and doing so he has not committed any contempt of the Order dated 14-6-2007. The submissions made on behalf of the Respondents are not seriously contested on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner's contract had expired on 9-1-2004 and thereafter no contract was executed. The tender was allotted much later to some other person, other than the Petitioner or Respondent No.5. The Petitioner has not shown prima facie that he had a right to take six persons in the naval enclave, which is a security area, to service the TV sets which he was servicing earlier. If, Respondent No.5 was already servicing the cable TV sets provided by him before this Court's Order dated 14-6-2007 then certainly he could not be committing any contempt of this Court. Considering the circumstances of the case, no clear case is made out to initiate contempt proceedings. Contempt application is therefore dismissed with costs. Notice discharged. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.