1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No.278 of 2009 Rajivi Sinha Anchan ..Petitioner vs. 1 Shri J.S.Jadhav Special Recovery & Sales Officer attached to Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Kumthekar for petitioner Shri A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b Shri Subhash Bane for respondent nos.1 and 2 CORAM: K.K.TATED J 18th February,2010 P.C. 1 By this contempt petition, the petitioner is seeking an order from this Court to take action against respondent nos.1 and 2 for violating the order dated 16th July 2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5979 of 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent nos.1 and 2 published public notice dated 24th June, 2009 2 for auctioning her property. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.5979 of 2009 in which the order came to be passed on 16th July 2009 directing respondent nos.1 and 2 not to take any action on the basis of the proclamation in the public notice dated 24th June, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the order dated 16th July 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.5979 of 2009, respondent nos.1 and 2 published notice of auction dated 25th July 2009 and thereby committed contempt of this Court. 2 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 states that till today auction has not taken place in respect of the suit property. He has further pointed out that writ petition no.5979 of 2009 has been finally disposed off by order dated 22nd September, 2009. As per the said order dated 22nd September, 2009 respondent nos. 1 and 2 have already supplied all the 3 documents mentioned in the application at Exhibit E to the petitioner. After passing the order dated 22nd September, 2009 they published a notice in the newspaper on 3rd February 2010 for auctioning the petitioner s property and, therefore, there is no question of committing any contempt of the order passed by this Court on 16th July 2009. 3 I have gone through the affidavit in reply filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 5th January, 2010 and rejoinder dated 15th February, 2010. Both the affidavit in reply as well as rejoinder are taken on record. It is clear from the order dated 16th July, 2009 that this Court directed respondent nos.1 and 2 not to take any action pursuant to the public notice dated 25th July 2009. A letter dated 27thy July, 2009 from respondent no.1 (Exhibit C to the contempt petition) shows that respondent nos.1 and 2 have informed the 4 public at large that for some technical reason they postponed the auction of the suit property. The public notice dated 25th July 2009 also shows that they postponed the date of opening date of tender. In the affidavit in reply dated 5th January 2010 respondent nos.1 and 2 have specifically stated that till today they have not taken any action on the basis of proclamation in the public notice dated 25th June, 2009 save and except publishing that the date for public auction mentioned in the public notice for taking such action was postponed. Paragraph 4 of the said affidavit in reply reads as under : 4 At the further out set I will hasten to add that these respondents have not taken any action on the basis of proclamation in the public notice for taking such action. I say that these answering respondents have even till date did nothing at all in 5 accordance with or in pursuance of the aforesaid proclamation in issue. The action on the basis of proclamation in the public notice dated 24th June, 2009 was to start by accepting tenders by the answering respondents. However, till date tenders are not accepted. Consequently, there was no occasion at all to take any further action on the basis of proclamation in the public notice dated 24th June, 2009. 4 It is crystal clear from the above mentioned facts and circumstances that respondent nos.1 and 2 have not taken any action pursuant to the public notice dated 25th June 2009 till disposal of the writ petition no.5979 of 2009. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 22nd September, 2009. At the time of disposal of the said writ petition no.5979 of 2009 this Court has not granted any interim relief and/or status quo order in favour of the petitioner. Considering this 6 fact I do not find any substance in the present contempt petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.K.TATED J.)