1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 92/2010 IN W.P. NO. 798/2010 (Seth Bankatlal Maloo (S.B.M.) Industries Pvt. Ltd. Power of Attorney VERSUS K.P. Bhagat & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Mehta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Chandurkar, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 4, 2010 . By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.798/2010 by the judgment dated 21.04.2010. It is the case of the petitioner that by the judgment dated 21.04.2010, the order passed by the Ombudsman on 13.01.2010 was quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to restore the power supply to the petitioner- Industry as continuous power supply industry. It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that in spite of the order passed by this Court on 21.04.2010, the petitioner-industry did not get continuous power supply on 28.04.2010, which was a Wednesday, according to the load shedding schedule. 2 The respondents have put in their appearance before this Court and Shri A.S. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Rural Circle, Nagpur has, by the communication dated 28.04.2010 informed the petitioner- industry that continuous supply would be restored to petitioner's Unit at Patansavangi as per the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.798/2010. A copy of this communication is served on the counsel for the respondents, today. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents would not restore the continuous power supply to the petitioner- industry tomorrow also, since 5th of May would also be a load shedding day, being a Wednesday. Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived as the communication dated 28.04.2010 clearly states that a continuous power supply is restored to the petitioner-industry at Patansavangi in view of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.798/2010. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment dated 21.04.2010, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately flouted and disobeyed the directions issued by the Court in paragraph 23 of the 3 judgment dated 21.04.2010 merely because continuous power supply was not provided to the petitioner's unit on 28.04.2010 as there is nothing in paragraph 23 of the order to restore the supply to the industry immediately from 21.04.2010. Though there was no continuous power supply on 28.04.2010, it is pointed out by communication dated 28.04.2010 and the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner's unit would receive continuous power supply even on a load shedding day after the communication dated 28.04.2010 and the supply would be continuous even on a load shedding day. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully flouted the orders passed by this Court on 21.04.2010 by disrupting the electric supply to the petitioner's industry on 28.04.2010 for some time. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE