1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.188 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2596 OF 2003 Sk. Babu Sk. Rafiq Hussein, age 70 yrs. Occu. Pensioner, r/o New Bhaji Market, c/o Royal Fruit Company, Itware, Nanded. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, through Irrigation Department, U.A. Pimpale, Section Officer Mantralaya, Bombay. (Matter dismissed against R.No.1 vide Court’s order dated 16.6.2007). 2 Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad through its Executive Engineer B.R. Deshmukh, LDP Irrigation Divn. Sailu, Dist. Parbhani. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.Md. Mustafa Momin, Adv.for Petitioner(absent). Mr.P.R. Tandale, Advocate for R.No.2. ... 2 CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 3rd September, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner alleging therein that the respondents have not obeyed the order dated 10th September, 2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2596 of 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed O.A. NO.828 of 1992 filed by the petitioner by order dated 27th January, 2003 and it was held that the applicant therein i.e. present petitioner is entitled to get pension and pensionary benefits. The respondents were directed to make proposal to the Accountant General, Nagpur within a period of fifteen days from 27th January, 2003 and to see that the pension is paid to the applicant within three months from the said date. 2. This order of the M.A.T., in O.A. No.828 of 1992 dated 27th January, 2003 was assailed before this Court by Godawari Marathwada Irrigation 3 Development Corporation i.e. respondent No.2 herein. The Division Bench of this Court, on 10th September, 2003 in Writ Petition No.2596 of 2003, confirmed the order passed by the M.A.T. and rejected the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 herein. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the M.A.T., which is confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2596 of 2003 by order dated 10th September, 2003, is not obeyed by the respondents. Hence, this Contempt Petition was filed in the year, 2004. 3. The contempt petition was taken up for hearing by this Court on 5th October, 2004 when notices were issued to the respondents. Since the petitioner failed to serve notice on respondent No.1 State, the contempt petition was dismissed as against respondent No.1 as per order of the Court dated 16.6.2007. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent No.2 herein filed affidavit-in-reply on 10th August, 2005. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, a statement is made that respondent No.2 never intended or acted intentionally to disobey or exhibit disregard to 4 any of the order of the Court. In paragraph 3, unconditional apology is tendered for any of the acts, if amounting to contempt of the Court. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-reply, reference is made to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2596 of 2003. It is further stated that by letter dated 3rd November, 2003, the respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra had invited detail information in the matter of the petitioner from the office of the respondent No.2 and for taking appropriate decision at the State level, some more time was required to comply with the order of this Court. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed one Civil Application (Stamp) No.34285 of 2003 for extension of time to comply with the order. In paragraph 7, it is further stated that respondent No.1 referred the matter to its Law & Judiciary Department for seeking opinion to prefer appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court. However, the Law & Judiciary department of the respondent No.1 opined on 23rd September, 2004 that there is no case to approach before the Supreme Court and therefore, the respondent No.2 proceeded for forwarding the proposal to the A.G. 5 Nagpur. By letter dated 1st October, 2002, the Superintending Engineer, Jayakwadi Project Circle intimated that pension proposal of the petitioner is sent to A.G., Nagpur. In turn, the A.G., Nagpur has sanctioned the pension to the petitioner and the said fact was communicated to the answering respondent on 8th December, 2004. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 had issued “no dues, no enquiry” certificate on 27th December, 2004 to the Treasury Office for making payment to the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, it is further stated that in due compliance of the order passed by the M.A.T., and this Court, all the benefits as directed by the M.A.T., in its order dated 27th January, 2003 are duly paid to the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded that there is delay in complying the order. However, the said delay has been properly explained in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2. He further submits that in contempt proceedings, the Officer who was working in respondent No.2 Corporation at the relevant 6 time, is not made party by name. Therefore, no contempt proceedings can be proceeded against the respondent No.2 Corporation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply and subsequent events after receiving pension by the petitioner. He has tendered a copy of the order passed by the learned Division Bench on 29th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No.4331 of 2005, which takes notice of the fact that the retirement dues came to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner on 11.2.2005. It appears that the said writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein, aggrieved by non payment of interest on pension and other amount which was due to be paid to him prior to 11th February, 2005. The copy of the said order dated 29th January, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.4331 of 2005 is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification purposes. 5. This matter was listed for final hearing on 2nd September, 2010. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not present and after hearing the learned Counsel for respondent No.2, 7 the matter was adjourned for today to facilitate the Counsel for the petitioner to make his appearance. However, today also none appears for the petitioner. 6. With the Assistance of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, I have perused the contempt petition, annexures thereto and the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent NO.2. It is true that the order passed by the M.A.T., is not complied within the stipulated period. However, question remains as to whether there is any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in not obeying the order of the Court? Taking into consideration, the entire material placed on record including the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, in my considered opinion, there is no willful disobedience or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in not obeying the order within the stipulated period. The delay has been explained in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. The contempt proceedings are of quasi judicial nature and if 8 the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no willful disobedience or intention on the part of the contemnors to flout the orders of the Court, the contempt proceedings are required to be stopped, if the order is already complied. Viewed from any angle, I feel that it is not necessary to continue further proceedings of contempt in this matter. The respondent No.2 has tendered unconditional apology in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply. For all these reasons, the contempt petition does not survive and the same is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*