( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ CONTEMPT PETITION NO.167 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.167 OF 2009 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.167 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.6735 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6735 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6735 OF 2008 Sudhakar Balkrishna Joshi & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. Vasantlal Popatlal Gandhi & Anr. ..Respondents ...... Ms. Preeti B. Walimbe for the petitioners None for the respondents ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 2nd May, 2009 DATED : 2nd May, 2009 DATED : 2nd May, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This contempt petition is taken out on the ground that respondents have committed contempt in regard to the order passed in the Writ Petition No.6735 of 2008. The petition does not disclose a positive case that any of the respondents have committed contempt. 2. Learned advocate for the petitioners was asked to checkup the actual facts and she informs the Court that the respondents have taken the decision to expel Mr. Vilas Chintaman Joshi from the post of Director of the said society. According to her, this amounts to contempt. 3. If the petitioners are of the view that by ( 2 ) expelling Mr.Joshi from the post of Director, respondents have committed contempt. Certainly the said fact and the cause of action have not been mentioned in this petition. Therefore, this contempt petition cannot be taken ahead. It is requires dismissal of the contempt petition and is accordingly dismissed. 4. If the petitioners are of the view that the respondents have committed contempt by expelling Mr.Joshi, they are free to attend that matter in accordance with the provisions of law. No liberty is required. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the fact of expelling of Mr.Joshi came to the knowledge of petitioners some time in the month of March, 2009. Despite this, these facts were not stated in the petition and the petition came to be filed. It is only when the matter was taken up and heard, this fact is mentioned to the Court. This is required to be stated as a matter of fact and to show the conduct of the petitioners. In view of this, petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- by way of token costs. This costs will be appropriated by payment of the same to the legal Services of the State. Payment of costs shall be condition precedent, for any further proceedings arising out of the Writ petition on the basis of which this contempt is filed. ( 3 ) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)