VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION No. 252 OF 2008 Rajendra Sitaram Lohati Petitioner Vs. S. S. Sandhu & Anr. Respondents Mr. Manoj Kadam, for the petitioner. Mrs. S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent-Govt. CORAM : A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 5, 2008. PC :- 1. The office note shows that a notice issued to respondent No.1 is not received back either duly served or unserved. However, the lear AGP appearing for the respondent No.1 points out that affidavit-in- reply is also filed. There are only two respondents and both of them are represented by the learned AGP. The Contempt Petition is ready for admission and by consent of parties, petition is taken up for admission and is heard accordingly. 2. The petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition alleging that the respondents have committed - 2 - breach of an order passed by this Court on 9th June 2008 in Writ Petition No. 23rd June, 2008. 3. This Court by the aforesaid order dated 4th June, 2008 had directed the Divisional Commission, the first respondent herein to consider the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad dated 22nd May 2008 and pass appropriate orders in that regard, after hearing all the parties concerned. The grievance of the petitioner herein who was the original Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition, in which the aforesaid order of 4th June, 2008 is passed, is that the Divisional Commissioner did consider the aforesaid report of the Chief Executive Officer dated 22nd May 2008 and did pass an order in that regard, but without giving any notice and/or hearing to the present Contempt Petitioner i.e. the original Writ Petitioner. On this ground, it is contended that the first respondent has committed breach of the order of this Court dated 4th June, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2008. 4. The learned AGP however, informs the Court that the first respondent- the Divisional Commissioenr has already recalled the order, which was so passed by - 3 - him without hearing the present petitioner. She further points out that notice is issued to the petitioner and in fact the matter is fixed today before the Divisional Commissioner for passing fresh order in terms of the directions of this Court, the breach of which is alleged by the Contempt Petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner accepts the aforesaid factual statements as true and correct. However, he points out that the contesting respondents from the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2008 have challenged the order of the Divisional Commissioner whereby he has recalled the order initially passed, referred to hereinabove. 6. In my view only because order passed by the Divisional Commissioner recalling his own order is challenged by the contesting respondent from Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2008, this Contempt Petition need not be kept pending. In my view, in the light of the admitted facts, set out hereinabove, since the respondent-Divisional Commissioner has already recalled his order that was passed in breach of directions issued by this Court and since he is hearing the present Contempt Petitioner today before - 4 - passing fresh order, in compliance with such directions of this Court, there is no reason for this Court to take any action against the respondent in the exercise of its contempt jurisdiction. 7. This Court hopes and trusts that the respondent-Divisional Commissioner will pass the appropriate order pass, at the earliest keeping in mind that one months time to pass such order was granted by the aforesaid order of this Court dated 4th June, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 2316 of 2008. 8. This Contempt is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]