1 cp208.06 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 208 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2005 [ The Vaidyanath Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Mah. & Anr. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for State. Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for Resp. No.2. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : This Contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order 16-06-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 754 of 2005. Relevant order/directions are in Para-3 of the said order, which reads thus : "3. In the result, the writ 2 cp208.06 petition is partly allowed. The execution of the Recovery Certificate is stayed, subject to condition that the petitioner pays installments of Rs.5,00,000/- per month till the full amount covered by the Recovery Certificate is repaid." 2. From perusal of Para-3 of the order of the Single Judge of this Court reproduced hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that, the execution of the recovery certificate is stayed, subject to condition that the petitioner pays installments of Rs.5,00,000/- per month till the full amount covered by the Recovery Certificate is repaid. 3. Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that, some amount as directed by this Court has been deposited by respondent No.2. Admittedly, respondent No.2 herein, has not deposited the installments of 3 cp208.06 Rs.5,00,000/- per month regularly. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the petitioner can proceed against respondent No.2 by taking appropriate steps, to recover the amount under recovery certificate. However, in my opinion, there is no any willful disobedience as such. The nature of order/direction, in Para-3 of the order of which disobedience is alleged, itself would make it clear that, the order is conditional and therefore, in case, respondent No.2 failed to deposit the installments of Rs. 5,00,000/- per month on regular basis, till full amount covered by the recovery certificate is repaid, the stay would not operate against the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter, I do not think it necessary to keep this contempt petition pending. Same stands 4 cp208.06 disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11