1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.7 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.794 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1578 OF 2003 IN SUIT NO.145 OF 2003 M/s. Padam Exports & Anr. )..Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr. G. L. Jain in person. Mr. S. R. Rajguru with Mr. Arun Verma for the respondent/Union of India. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 8th June, 2010 PC 1 This is a Contempt Petition filed by the original plaintiff alleging the disobedience of an order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Dr. S.Radhakrishnan & S.J. Vazifdar, JJ) in Notice of Motion No.2751 of 2005 in Appeal No.794 of 2005. The record of the case indicates that the present Contempt Petition was filed in person. When the Contempt Petition appeared before this Court on 2.3.2010 the petitioner submitted that an Advocate from the amicus curie panel may be appointed to represent him. The Court passed an order directing the office to engage an Advocate from the amicus curie panel. 2 When the matter appeared before this Court on 11.3.2010, the Court recorded that 2 the Prothonotary & Senior Master had informed the Court that there was no panel for amicus curie on the appellate side or on the original side. She further informed the Court that the legal panel was maintained by the Legal Aid Committee. The Court therefore, directed her to appoint the Advocate from the Legal Aid Panel. Thereafter matter appeared before this Court on 23.3.2010, where this Court (Coram : D.G. Karnik, J) recorded that the petitioner, who was appearing in person, submitted that he did not want any legal aid and wanted to argue the matter in person. The Court therefore, recorded that the office need not act in pursuance of the order dated 7.3.2010 and at the request of the petitioner, petition was adjourned to 8.6.2010. 3 Thereafter the petitioner was heard today in person. He now states that he may be given an Advocate from the amicus curie panel. In view of the earlier order and in view of the fact that no such panel exists, it is not possible to grant his request. He then states that the matter may be transferred to some other Court. I am not inclined to consider this request as parties cannot be permitted to shop for a forum. 4 I have perused the papers. It is seen that under the order dated 5.5.2006 the Division Bench had granted opportunity to the present petitioner to approach the respondents to resolve the entire controversy in a fair manner. Division Bench has further recorded that if any such application was made by the present petitioner, the respondents were required to decide the same as expeditiously as possible. The order passed by the Division Bench is as follows :- “1 Heard Appellant No.2 in person and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2 Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant an opportu nity to Appellant No.2 to approach the Respondents to resolve the entire 3 controversy in a fair manner. Accordingly liberty is granted. 3 If such an application is made by Appellant No.2, the Respondents to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.” 5 The record further indicates that after passing of the order the present petitioner addressed a letter dated 10.5.2006 addressed jointly to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi and also to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New CGO Building, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Bombay. The record further indicates that after receipt of this letter calling upon the addressees to resolve the entire controversy in accordance with the direction given by the Division Bench passed an order dated 5.5.2006 in a fair manner. The present petitioner was heard and by a reasoned order dated 25.7.2006 the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected for the reasons which are mentioned in the said order. 6 The record further indicates that the order dated 25.7.2006 was challenged by the present petitioner by filing a Writ petition in the High Court at Delhi. The petitioner also filed a Contempt Petition bearing Contempt Petition No.583 of 2009 before a single Judge of the Delhi High Court. By a common order passed in the Writ petition as well as in the Contempt Petition, the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. As regards the Contempt Petition, in paragraph-8 of the order dated 17.7.2009, Delhi High Court observed as under :- “Petitioner in the Contempt Petition No.583/2009 alleges non compliance of order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. In case the petitioner feels that there is non compliance of the Order dated 5th May, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, he is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the said Court.” 4 7 Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, the present petitioner filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No.359 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was pleased to reject the appeal as being devoid of merits. Consequently, petitioner has now filed the present Contempt Petition in this Court. 8 On the merits of the case, I find that all that Division Bench has done was an offer to an opportunity to the present petitioner to approach the respondents to resolve the entire controversy in a fair manner. There was a further direction that in case if such an application was made, the respondents were to decide the same as expeditiously as possible. It is seen that thereafter the application made by the present petitioner on 10.5.2006 has been dealt with and disposed off on behalf of the respondents vide an order dated 25.7.2006. Perusal of the said order indicates that the said order has been passed after offering personal hearing to the present petitioner. 9 The aforesaid facts indicate that the order dated 5.5.2006 has been complied with and the representation filed by the present petitioner has been received, dealt with and disposed off. 10 On behalf of the petitioner grievance is made in respect of the order dated 26.5.2006. It is contended that the order dated 26.5.2006 has been passed without dealing all the facts and in a malafide manner and by concealing certain important materials. These are matters, which if found to be correct, and if proved, may affect the legality of the order dated 25.6.2006. It is seen that though that order has been challenged before the 5 Delhi High Court, the Delhi High Court was pleased to reject the challenge mainly on the ground that the same could not have been challenged in a writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Petition is therefore, dismissed. It is however clarified that the petitioner will be entitled to challenge the legality of an order dated 25.7.2006 by filing an appropriate suit or by making an application for amending the present suit if he so desires. Any such suit may or application will however be considered on its own merits. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 6