1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.81 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.219 OF 2011 Shri Vitthal Shivram Tekam Vs. Shri Vijay Chavan, The Deputy Regional Transport Officer and another. ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri T.D.Mandlekar, Counsel for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21. JUNE, 2011. In Writ Petition No.219 of 2011 decided on 25.1.2011, this Court has set aside the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the respondents, suspending the Taxi Permit of the petitioner. Though show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.11.2010 before petitioner could furnish his explanation, the order was passed. Hence, this Court has set aside the said order and has granted petitioner an opportunity to furnish .....2/- 2 his explanation to the concerned authorities within a period of seven days. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has not furnished the explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2010, but the petitioner has by communication dated 1.2.2011 demanded certain documents in order to furnish explanation. The complaint in this contempt petition is that in the light of the decision given by this Court on 25.1.2011 it was obligatory upon the respondents to offer the petitioner an opportunity to furnish his explanation to the show cause notice dated 20.11.2010 and further to grant an opportunity of hearing and then to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. However, according to the learned Counsel, this has not been complied. The learned Counsel has pointed out that instead of carrying out the proceedings of show cause notice dated 20.11.2010, the respondents have issued four separate show cause notices, all dated 31.1.2011. He does not dispute that pursuant to the same explanation has been furnished and after granting hearing to the .....3/- 3 petitioner, the orders have been passed cancelling the Taxi Permit under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and this is the subject matter of challenge in separate Writ Petition No.2151 of 2011 filed before this Court. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 25.1.2011 passed by this Court shows, that there was no prohibition imposed upon the respondents to issue fresh show cause notices. It is not in dispute that in the fresh show cause notices issued, the charges which were levelled against the petitioner in show cause notice dated 20.11.2010, have also been included. The petitioner has furnished the explanation and he was also heard on these aspects. In view of this, no case is made out for issuing notices of this contempt petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-