1 cp-113.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 113 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4391 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1845 OF 2010 Rekhabai w/o Amrut Ishi, Age: 35 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Anturli, Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule. ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS ... Mr. P.D. Bachate, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for Resp. Nos.2 to 6. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2011 PER COURT : Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted his argument only in respect of order passed by this Court dated 02-09-2010. 2 cp-113.11 According to him, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have not followed direction/order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 02-09-2010 and thereby there is willful disobedience by respondent Nos. 2 to 6. . It is further submitted that in spite of specific direction by this Court and statement made before the Division Bench of this Court by learned Counsel of the Scrutiny Committee that the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell in Enquiry shall be included as part and parcel of the vigilance cell report, the said statement is not abided by the respondents. It is further submitted that the affidavit in reply and the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is contrary to the record. In fact, the said statement which was made before this Court and which is part of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, has not been complied with. False affidavit is filed. The contents of Para-2 of additional affidavit in 3 cp-113.11 reply are not correct and contrary to the record. In fact, respondent Nos. 2 to 6 have not included the documents collected during the inquiry by the vigilance cell as part and parcel of the vigilance cell report. Learned Counsel further submitted that since false affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the petitioner may be given liberty to prosecute them in accordance with relevant provisions of law. 2. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 invited my attention to the additional affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 and in particular Para-2 of the said additional affidavit in reply and submitted that the statement made by the Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4391 of 2010 has been abided and followed and accordingly, the documents collected by the vigilance cell in the inquiry are included as part and parcel of the vigilance cell report 4 cp-113.11 bearing annexures Serial Nos. 1 to 58. 3. Since the respondents have filed affidavit on oath and stated that the documents collected by the vigilance cell in the inquiry are included as part and parcel of the vigilance cell report bearing annexures Serial Nos. 1 to 58, in my opinion, contempt petition can be disposed of on the basis of the said statement which is made on oath by the respondents. 4. In my opinion, nothing further requires to be considered in this contempt petition. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. . At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, contents of the affidavits are false and petitioner may be given liberty to take appropriate remedy to file appropriate proceedings against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. If remedy is available to the 5 cp-113.11 petitioner, same can be availed and no orders are necessary in that respect. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11