1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 172/2008 IN W.P.NO. 1689/2008 (DECIDED) (M/s Bharat Traders thro. Its Partner Shri A.D. Maheshwari & another VERSUS M.S.M.C. Ltd. Thro. Its Managing Director & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.D. Maheshwari, petitioner in person. Shri C.S. Kaptan, counsel for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this contempt petition, the petitioners seek initiation of appropriate proceedings against the respondents for having committed gross contempt of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 13.08.2008 in Writ Petition No.1689/2008 and for punishing them in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court had, while disposing of Writ Petition No.1689/2008 by an order dated 13.08.2008, taken the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 on record and had also noted the statements made by 2 the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 to the petition, that the procedure of inviting tenders by advertising the same in widely circulated newspapers, placing the same on MSMC's website, following and keeping the transparent procedure of opening of tenders and finalizing the same before all bidders, will be strictly adhered to by MSMC. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2, the petition was disposed of. It is the case of the petitioners that though the order was passed by the Division Bench on 13.08.2008, the respondents did not give wide publicity to the tenders and, in fact, did not issue tenders for sale of the minerals after 13.08.2008. The petitioners have annexed table/chart to the petition, showing that certain quantities of minerals were sold by the respondents during the period from 14.08.2008 till 23.09.2008 without inviting tenders. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents have grossly breached the terms of the undertaking given by the respondents before the Court in Writ Petition No.1689/2008. It is the case of 3 the petitioners that this action of the respondents has also caused a lot of loss to the Corporation. The respondent nos.1 and 2 have filed an affidavit-in-reply and have stated that they have not committed the contempt of Court by either disobeying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.08.2008 or by breaching the undertaking. It is stated in the reply that the rate of the minerals was fixed after the Board of Directors of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Limited in its 168th meeting dated 16.07.2008 had discussed, resolved and adopted the minerals' sale, payment and procedure to be followed with regard to the sale policy of the minerals. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 that the rates prevailing on 16.07.2008 were to continue for a period of three months till the rates were revised after considering the demand and supply process for the minerals and were put up before the Board of Directors of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation for approval. According to the respondents, the respondent had published an advertisement on 24.08.2008 inviting offers 4 for deployment of men and mining machinery to produce ore and sale of the same from Maharashtra State Mining Corporation's mines at various places. Certain other advertisements published by the respondents were also annexed to the reply filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2. It is stated in the reply that the tender documents in regard to the sale of minerals like Dolomite, Sillimanite, Kyanite, Felspar and Limestone were published on the website of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Limited on 28.08.2008. It is explained in the reply as to why it was not possible to issue tenders in respect of certain minerals till 15.12.2008. It is categorically stated in the reply that after 15.12.2008, no minerals are sold without issuing the tenders and proper advertisements. In such circumstances, according to the respondent nos.1 and 2, it cannot be said that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have willfully and deliberately flouted the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.08.2008 in Writ Petition no.1689/2008. The reasons stated by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in their reply for not issuing the tenders and 5 advertising the same for certain period after the passing of the order dated 13.08.2008, of which the contempt is alleged, clearly show that the respondents have not willfully and deliberately flouted the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.08.2008 or breached the undertaking given by the respondent nos.1 and 2 through their submissions filed before the Division Bench. In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are liable to be dropped and they are dropped accordingly. The notice issued to the respondents on 19.09.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE