1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.240 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5191 OF 2006. Sau. Gauri w/o Pravin Wakharkar, age about 31 years, occu. Nil c/o Ramesh Kashinath Rumale, r/o 103, Nikita Apartments, 195/A-Baliram Peth, at Po: Jalgaon, Tal & Dist. Jalgaon. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1 Shri Walchale, the then Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. 2 Shri S.J. More, Assistant Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay, age 45 years, occu. Service. And others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.N. Kutti, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.M. Shah, Sr. Counsel with Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate for R.Nos.1 and 2. Shri D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for State. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 1st October, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition alleges that the then 2 Registrar (Judicial) had not take immediate steps to communicate the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5191 of 2006 on the same day. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5191 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein passed certain orders on 20th July, 2006 by which, the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) was granted in favour of the petitioner herein. It is contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on very same day Advocate Mr. R.R. Mantri appearing for the original petitioner addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad and requested him to communicate the order dated 20th July, 2006 to his counterpart at Principal Bench, Mumbai. The said letter is placed on record at Exh.D. It appears that the said letter is dated 20th July, 2006. 2. It is contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that in spite of this letter addressed to the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 did 3 not communicate the order passed by the Division Bench on 20th July, 2006 in Writ Petition No.5191 of 2006. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner since the respondent No.1 did not communicate the order passed by the learned Division Bench on 20th July, 2006, the learned Single Judge at Principal Bench at Bombay by order dated 24th July, 2006 dismissed in default the Misc. Civil Application No.54 of 2006, which was filed by the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that due to non communication of the order passed by the learned Division Bench on 20th July, 2006 by the respondent No.1 to his counterpart at Bombay, the order dated 24th July, 2006 came to be passed, unaware of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.5191 of 2006 at Aurangabad Bench. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that respondent No.1 was duty bound to communicate the order of the Division Bench to his counterpart at Bombay, which he failed to do. 3. In pursuance to the notice issued by this Court in this Contempt petition, affidavit-in- 4 reply has been filed by Respondent No.1 - Mr. M.K. Walchale, presently working as District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the respondent No.1 has admitted the fact that on 20th July, 2006 Mr. R.R. Mantri handed over the letter to him. However, it is stated that the said letter had disclosed in vague terms the interim relief granted in Writ Petition No.5191/06 filed by the present petitioner. It is further stated that said letter was not accompanied with the affidavit of the petitioner, copy of the petition nor with the order referred in the said letter. It is further stated that after receipt of the said letter, respondent No.1 immediately put his endorsement “S.O. (W.P.) to put up the papers urgently.” Copy of the said letter on which endorsement is put by the respondent No.1 is also annexed with the reply. It is further stated that in response to the endorsement, the file of Writ Petition No.5191 of 2006 was placed before him on 24th July, 2006. It is further stated in the affidavit that the order passed by the learned Division Bench in Writ Petition No.5191 5 of 2006 was communicated by him to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay by speed post vide O.W. NO.12978/06 dt. 24.7.2006. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on oral instructions from respondent No.1, submitted that the order dated 20th July, 2006 in Writ Petition No.5191/2006 was signed on 21st July,l 2006 and on 22nd and 23rd July, 2006, there were holidays. Therefore, the concerned Section Officer placed the file of the said Writ Petition before the Registrar (Judicial) on 24th July, 2006. On the very same day, the said order has been communicated by the respondent NO.1 to Registrar (Judicial), High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay, as stated earlier. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the alleged inaction on the part of respondent NO.1, even according to the petitioner, has taken place in the year, 2006. However, the Contempt Petition has been filed in the year, 2009 and, therefore, in view of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it is barred by limitation. 6 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the affidavit- in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 properly explains the position. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel, on oral instructions, has made a statement before this Court that the order dated 20th July, 2006 was signed by the learned Judges on 21st July, 2006 and there were holidays on 22nd and 23rd July, 2006 and the file of Writ Petition after completing all formalities, was placed by the Section Officer before the respondent NO.1 on 24th July, 2006. 6. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the letter was given by Advocate Mr. R.R. Mantri on 20th July, 2006, the respondent NO.1 was duty bound to communicate the order passed by the Division Bench to his counterpart at Bombay immediately, is required to be rejected. Unless the signed order along with the writ petition is placed before the Registrar (Judicial), it is not possible for the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the order merely on the basis of the letter written by the Advocate to 7 the Registrar. That apart, the respondent No.1 in paragraph 4 has stated that the contents of the letter handed over to him disclosed in vague terms the interim relief granted in Writ Petition No.5191/06. 7. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, I do not think that there is any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5191/2006. Viewed from any angle, there is no substance in the contempt petition. It is devoid of any merits. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notice stands discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*