1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.363 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3527 OF 2001 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mr.C.V.Thombre, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent 1. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 8th APRIL 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners followed by the submissions of learned AGP. 2. It appears that the present contempt petition is filed by the petitioners alleging that the 2nd respondent has committed breach of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 3527/2001, in which directions were given to conduct the inquiry against Chairman and Members of the Managing Committee and to take appropriate steps in respect of conducting inquiry within the period of 6 months. This order came to be passed on 2 07/09/2001. 3. It appears that after notice, the 2nd respondent appeared in the contempt petition and filed his affidavit in reply. The affidavit in reply discloses first that at the relevant time, this 2nd respondent was not working as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, but took charge of that post w.e.f. 12/10/2006 and working till today. Prima-facie the 2nd respondent can not be held guilty, if any act is committed which is alleged in this petition as breach of the order. It is further stated in the said affidavit that, he has filed this affidavit on the basis of record made available to him from the office of deponent. This record shows that as per the directions in the writ petition, inquiry was initiated and completed long back on 19/01/2002. Subsequent to the inquiry, the report was also submitted to the concerned officer. This Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry u/s. 80 of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In the said inquiry, it revealed that so far as the signatures appearing of the present petitioners are forged signatures, but as there 3 are no directions to file the criminal complaint to that effect, no complaint appeared to be filed, but the report was submitted to the concerned to take appropriate action. The affidavit in reply and the documents annexed with clearly shows that the directions given in the writ petition were complied long back, even before filing of the contempt petition. In view of this, contempt petition failed against 2nd respondent on two grounds as the directions are complied with even before filing of contempt petition and at the relevant time, the 2nd respondent was not holding the charge of the post of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies as alleged. Contempt petition dismissed. Notice discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cp363-09