1 C.P. No.174/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.174 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.11362 OF 2010 Balaji Bhanudas Dhakane ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Shri S.V. Warad, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 25th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the interim order dated 15.12.2010, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1136/2010. By the interim order, ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted by the Division Bench. Prayer clause (C) of Writ Petition No.1136/2010 reads thus : “Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition to grant stay to the impugned order No. 278/2010-11 dated 5.12.2010 issued by respondent 2 C.P. No.174/2011 No.3 society and letter dated 6.12.2010 issued by the respondent No.4 and to direct the respondents allowed to the work as a Peon in respondent No.4 School.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that, immediately after passing the ad-interim and exparte order, affidavit-in-reply was filed on 11.1.2011 and it was made clear in the affidavit-in-reply that the said order of the termination has already been acted upon. Therefore, the order of interim relief cannot be executed. 3. It appears that, subsequently on 13.7.2011, the Writ Petition itself is finally disposed of by the Division Bench. The Division Bench passed the following order : “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, challenging his termination vide order dated 6.12.2010 read with communication dated 5.12.2010 – Exhibit “E” and “R/13” respectively. 2. Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Interim relief stands vacated. 3. If the petitioner files appeal within a period of two weeks from today, Shri Warad, learned Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 fairly states that they will not raise objection as to limitation. His statement is recorded and accepted. 4. All contentions of the parties are kept open.” 3 C.P. No.174/2011 4. Upon perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner himself has withdrawn the Writ Petition with liberty to file appeal under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act. Further, the writ petition is disposed of and interim relief is also vacated. Therefore, the net result is that, the petitioner will be prosecuting appeal before the School Tribunal, the very subject matter of the Writ Petition will be before the appellate authority. 5. From perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and subsequent events took place after filing this contempt petition, in my opinion, it is difficult to conclude that there is any willful disobedience as such. In the given case there may be disobedience, but unless there is willful disobedience of the order, no contempt proceedings can be entertained and no alleged contemner can be punished. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no further orders are required to be passed in this Contempt Petition. Same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/wp316.11