:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 8 OF 2009 PETITION NO. 8 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 175 OF PETITION NO. 175 OF PETITION NO. 175 OF 2004 2004 2004 The Director, M/s. Shivkrupa Shikshan Prasarak Mandal. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. V.N. Sagare for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Karnik for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 31ST 31ST 31ST MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . It is alleged in the Contempt Petition that on 11th February 2004, this Court, in a Writ Petition by the present Petitioner directed that Provident Fund Commissioner, should consider objections raised and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was directed to be treated as a representation of the Petitioner and after hearing the concerned parties, the authority was directed to pass appropriate orders. Until he passes an order afresh and for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the said order, a Show Cause Notice issued on the Petitioner was not to be acted upon. Thus, the Petitioner was challenging a Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondent. 2. The grievance is that no fresh orders are passed :2: and yet the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer proceeded to issue a Warrant of Attachment attaching moveable properties of the Petitioner. The Warrant is dated 6th August 2008. In these circumstances, there is a willful disobedience to an order and direction of this Court, is the submission of Mr. Sagare. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Karnik, appearing for the Respondents invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and contended that the Authorities gave notice to the Petitioner to remain present but there was no co-operation. Hence, on the basis of the available record, the order was passed on 29th January 2008 and in furtherance of the same, the subject Warrant of Attachment was issued. 4. After this Petition was argued for some time and when I invited the attention of Mr. Karnik to the order sheet dated 29th January 2008, Mr. Karnik, after taking instructions, makes a statement that the Provident Fund Commissioner will hear the Petitioner afresh and pass an order in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the earlier proceedings. He also makes a further statement on instructions that the subject Warrant of Attachment will be withdrawn. 5. The grievance of Mr. Karnik is that the Petitioner :3: is not co-operating and that is how the matter was pending for last four years. Mr. Sagare states that the Petitioner will remain present before the Authority on the date and time stipulated by this Court. After taking instructions from Mr. K.L. Garje, Secretary of the Petitioner, who is present in Court, Mr. Sagare states that he will remain present before the Provident fund Commissioner on 8th April 2009 at 11.00 a.m. with all records. 6. If he is so present, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Thane to hear him and pass an order afresh as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of four weeks from the date of hearing. 7. Finding that there is no deliberate and willful disobedience of the order but the Authority proceeded on the basis of an order in the file, the Contempt Petition is disposed off with a finding that no case is made out for Civil Contempt. No costs. 8. Mr. Sagare, after instructions makes a statement that Writ Petition No. 6 of 2009 which is challenging the order dated 29th January 2008 and which order now stands quashed, will be withdrawn by him within a period of one week from today. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)