1 cp135.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8116 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10180 OF 2011 Nisarga Mitra Mandal, A Public Trust, Registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, having its office at 2, Dwarka Residency, Shakti Nagar, Aurangabad. Through its President Vijay s/o Raghvendra Diwan, Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Smt. Valsa Nair, Through Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Kishor C. Sant, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 cp135.11 2. In pursuance of the notice issued in this contempt petition, affidavit in reply is filed by the Secretary, Environment Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai stating therein that, the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been complied with. It is further stated in the affidavit in reply filed by the Secretary that, the persons, who are appointed as Chairman and Member Secretary of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, are competent to be appointed, in view of their qualifications and experience in the field. . Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, such appointments are not in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 3 cp135.11 3. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and another reported in (1998) 4 S.C.C. 409 has held thus : " The powers of the Supreme Court, under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, being supplementary powers have "to be used in exercise of its jurisdiction" in the case under consideration by the Supreme Court. Moreover, a case of contempt of court is not stricto sensu a cause or a matter between the parties inter se. It is a matter between the court and the contemnor. It is not, strictly speaking, tried as an adversarial litigation. The party, which brings the contumacious conduct of the contemnor to the notice of the court, whether a private person or the subordinate court, is only an informant and does not have the status of a litigant in the contempt of court case." 4. This Court is satisfied with the 4 cp135.11 compliance by the respondents and in the light of affidavit in reply filed by the Secretary, this Court find that the order of the Division Bench of this Court is complied with. If the petitioner is having any grievance about the appointments of such officers since the appointments are made subsequent to filing of the contempt petition, petitioner can take appropriate remedy as available under law. However, nothing further survives for consideration in the contempt petition, same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. Consequently, Civil Application stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11