1 wp-6383-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6383 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Shri Bhagwansing Gulabsing Malche..Respondent Mr. P.M. Palshikar, A-Panel Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. V.N. Tayade, for respondent. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATE: 5th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard. This petition filed by the State of Maharashtra through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home and two others prays for the following substantial reliefs:- “(b) That this Hon’ble Court by Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or direction to call for record and proceedings of the said matter from the file of the Original Application No.158 of 2009 filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai and after 2 wp-6383-10 perusal of the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 14-12-2009 and 30-7-2010 passed by the Learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Contempt Petition No.49 of 2010 in Original Application No.158 of 2009. (e) That the Petitioners may be allowed to complete the departmental enquiry, which is already under process against the Respondent and further be directed to the Respondent to cooperate for enquiry and extend the time by 4 months. (f) That the contempt proceeding in contempt petition No.49 of 2010 initiated by the Hon’ble Tribunal be stayed.” 2. So far as challenge to the orders passed in the Contempt Petition is concerned, it is well settled that while entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution this Court has no powers to deal with the same orders. 3. In O.A. No.158 of 2009 a Division Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal passed the following order while disposing of the said O.A.:- “Learned P.O. has presented a chart and explained the delay. He now 3 wp-6383-10 seeks, on instructions from Sri Warave, Section Officer, four months time to complete the enquiry. Accordingly, we direct that the enquiry be completed within four months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it will stand quashed. In the meanwhile, applicant be paid regular provisional pension from 01.06.2008.” 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states on instructions that the pending departmental enquiry has not yet been completed and he prays for extension of time beyond four months. We are afraid such a request cannot be entertained at this juncture, because the order passed by the Tribunal on 14th December, 2009 and impugned in this petition is a self operative order and if the enquiry was not completed by 14th March, 2010, it stood quashed on that day. 5. Though the order was passed on 14th December, 2009 and four months time was granted by the Tribunal, the petitioners did not challenge the said order either within the enquiry period of four months or immediately after the order was passed. This petition has been filed on 3rd 4 wp-6383-10 August, 2010 and as on that date the order passed by the Tribunal had taken effect. In our opinion, the petition at this stage cannot be entertained for the prayers of extension of time to complete the departmental enquiry. The petitioners may have their remedy on this count before the Tribunal. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected. We make it clear that this order will not prevent the petitioners from approaching the Tribunal with an appropriate application, as may be permissible in law. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)