cp259.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2010 Nanasaheb s/o Mahadu Dike age 37 years, occ. agril., r/o Daygaon, Tq. Gangapur Dist. Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Water Supply Department Mantralaya Mumbai 32. 2 The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. 3 Prashant s/o Bamsilal Bamb age major, occ. Present M.L.A. and Sarpanch, Sangvi Lasur station Daygaon, Tq. Gangapur Dist. Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.J. Undre, advocate holding for Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kaldate, AGP for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.G. Ladda, advocate for respondent no. 2 ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 24 th MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : cp259.10 2 1 The petitioner is alleging willful dis-obedience of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition no. 815/2010. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the Chairman of the Village Water Supply Committee, Daygaon. It is his contention that the Committee was constituted in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The State Government issued resolution on 3-9-2001 whereby it was directed that the Water Supply and Sanitation Committee shall be re-constituted and the Sarpanch and Gram Sewak shall be the President and Secretary of the respective Committee. The Government Resolution dt. 3-9-2001 was subjected to challenge in a petition presented by the petitioner being Writ Petition no. 815/2010. This court, while dealing with the petition, granted stay to the operation and implementation of the said Government Resolution, following the similar orders rendered in other writ petitions. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that a group of petitions raising challenge to the Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009 was taken up by the Division Bench of this court for consideration and in view of the final order dated 1-10-2010, this court directed quashment of the said Government Resolution. It is alleged by the petitioner that inspite of specific cp259.10 3 directions issued by this court extending protection to petitioner, the respondent no. 3 asserts himself to be the Chairman of the Committee, which act in itself is violative of the directions issued by this court. 3 An affidavit in reply has been presented by respondent no. 3 as well as by Executive Engineer, Water Supply Department, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad on behalf of respondent no. 2. It is the contention of the respondents that there were several complaints in respect of functioning of the Committee presided over by the present petitioner. A special meeting of the village panchayat was therefore conveyed for withdrawing the powers of Chairman conferred on the petitioner. A special Gram Sabha was conveyed on 28-5-2009 and a resolution was passed in the said Gram Sabha by majoring of 2/3 rd members present in the meeting, directing withdrawal of the powers vested in petitioner as Chairman of the Committee. It is also further contended by respondent no. 3 that a meeting was conveyed on 14-7-2009 for consideration of proposal for re-constitution of the Committee and after deliberation Gram Sabha adopted motion of re-constitution of Committee headed by petitioner. The Committee under Chairmanship of petitioner was abolished and a new Committee under Chairmanship of respondent no. 3 was constituted. Thus a new Village Development cp259.10 4 Committee was constituted prior to enforcement of the Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009. 4 In the instant matter, according to the respondents, Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009 has no impact so far as constitution of the New Village Development Committee is concerned. A Committee headed by the petitioner was already abolished and in its place a new Committee was constituted prior to enforcement of Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009. The directives issued by this court in the writ petition referred to above, infact do not have any impact on constitution of the Village Development Committee. It is also to be taken note of that in view of the final decision rendered in the aforesaid writ petition no. 1-10-2010, the Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009 has been directed to be quashed. So far as the Committee headed by respondent no. 3 is concerned, it continues to function as before, even after the decision rendered by this court on 1-10-2010 in writ petition referred to above. In this view of the matter, since the Committee headed by the petitioner was already abolished and in its place a new Committee headed by respondent no. 3 was constituted much prior to implementation of the Government Resolution dt. 18-11-2009, there arises no question of violation of any directives issued in Writ Petition. These cp259.10 5 facts were not brought to the notice of the court by petitioner while disposing of Writ Petition referred to above. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that there is any intentional violation of the order passed by this court, at the hands of the respondents. 5 Petitioner contends that constitution of the Committee headed by respondent no. 3 is illegal and is not in conformity with the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat Act. The petitioner may avail of the remedy available to him for challenging constitution of the Committee presided over by respondent no. 3. So far as this contempt application is concerned, in the facts and circumstances noted above, I do not find that there is any intentional violation or breach of the order passed by this court, at the instance of either of the respondents. Contempt petition is devoid of substance hence stands dismissed. Rule discharged. 6 In view of dismissal of the contempt petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb