: 1 : conp-88-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2010 Dilip B. Madhvani & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Filka Co-operative Housing Soc. Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents And Harshvardhan Patil .. Respondent / Contemnor ......... Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin Mrs. P. Mani Bajpai i/b Vimla & Co. for the petitioners ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. This petition arises on account of alleged non-compliance of order dated 18th February, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2342 of 2009. In the present contempt petition, it is the stand of the petitioners that respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.2342 of 2009 was directed to hear the petitioners and concerned parties and dispose of the Revision Application No.57 of 2008 within a period of 2 months from the date of communication of the order. In the order dated 18th February, 2010 learned Counsel then appearing for petitioner had undertaken to : 2 : conp-88-10=.sxw communicate this order to the respondent no.5 who was required to pass the said order. When the said Writ Petition No.2342 of 2009 was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader was present though the State of Maharashtra was not a party to the petition. One may not be able to investigate through the learned Government Pleader as to whether this order was communicated to respondent no.5. This is so because responsibility to communicate the order dated 18th February, 2010 was put on the petitioners. 2. It is noticed that by their letter dated 29th March, 2010 the petitioners had communicated order dated 18th February, 2010 to the officer concerned of Department of Co-operation, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai hoping that the said order would be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Minister who was respondent no.5 to the Writ Petition No.2342 of 2009. 3. It is the stand of the petitioners that the respondent no.5 could have disposed of the matter within a period of 2 months from 29th March, 2010 or there about and that is how this contempt petition has been taken up. On the last occasion, learned Counsel for the petitioners had pointed out that they had received a copy of order dated 25th October, 2010 in or about first week of November, 2010. By : 3 : conp-88-10=.sxw relying upon the envelope through which the said order was received, it was sought to be contended before this Court that the order is passed by respondent no.5 patently beyond the period provided for. 4. I was interested in finding out whether order dated 18th February, 2010 was in fact placed before the respondent no.5 to enable him to act upon it. For that purpose, I had called upon the petitioners to produce office copy of letter dated 29th March, 2010 duly receipted by the concerned staff of Department of Co-operation so that further investigation could have been done to ascertain whether order dated 18th February, 2010 was brought to the notice of respondent no.5. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed affidavit dated 25th February, 2011 and it is stated in the said affidavit that copy of the letter dated 29th March, 2010 is misplaced in the office. On account of this, this Court is unable to investigate and find out as to which Officer of Government of Maharashtra had received the original letter dated 29th March, 2010 and as to whether the said order dated 18th February, 2010 was brought to the notice of respondent no.5. It is quite possible that the order dated 18th February, 2010 was not placed before the respondent no.5 and that is how there could be some delay in passing the order. In my view, looking to the factual aspect, benefit of doubt will go to all concerned and, therefore, the petition cannot be : 4 : conp-88-10=.sxw entertained and is required to be rejected for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Contempt Petition is rejected at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)