{1} cp16909.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.169 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1087/1092 OF 2008 Shamsundar s/o Madanlal Dhoot and others Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.R.Pande, advocate for petitioners. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, advocate for respondents no.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 04 th May, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The contempt petitioners are making grievance in respect of breach of the directives issued in Writ Petition No. 1087/2008 with W.P. NO. 1092/2008, by the Division Bench of this Court. While disposing of the writ petitions, it was directed to the respondents that they shall allow petitioners access to the record, which is seized during inquiry. If petitioners require copies of any particular record for the purposes of supporting their reply, such copies also shall be furnished to the petitioners. 2 It is the contention of the petitioners that Respondent- {2} cp16909.odt authorities, though were directed to supply the record, have willfully disobeyed the directives and have not made available the relevant record, as required by the petitioners. 3 The Contempt Petition was taken up for consideration on number of occasions and necessary directions were issued to the Respondent-authorities to make efforts and ensure compliance of the directives issued by the Division Bench. In pursuance to the directive issued by this Court, petitioners were provided access to the record and in presence of the petitioners, record was searched, which was in the custody of the Investigating Officer and the available record, which could be traced out, was handed over to the petitioners concerned. A report is filed by the Tahsildar on 20.04.2011 informing that relevant record has been handed over concerning seven petitioners named in the report. Copies of the acknowledgments are also annexed with the report. 4 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented by one Dr.Arun s/o Damodhar Jarad, Tahsildar, Gangapur, in which he has stated that while the record was being scrutinized in presence of the petitioners, record regarding seven petitioners was not found. During the course of inspection, articles were demanded by the petitioners i.e. (i) Receipt books (ii) Cash Register (iii) Stock Register (iv) Permit and (v) Cash Register, however, all the record was inspected but the record regarding seven petitioners was not {3} cp16909.odt found. The petitioners were asked whether they had really deposited their record with the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the petitioners were asked to produce the receipts regarding deposit of the record with the Investigating Officer. No such receipts showing that the petitioners had deposited their record with the Investigating Officer are made available by the petitioners. An apprehension is expressed by the concerned deponent that it is doubtful as to whether petitioners had really deposited their record with the Investigating Officer. It is also stated in the affidavit that after the matter was adjourned on 15.03.2011, efforts were made and notices were issued to the petitioners whose record was not found on the earlier occasion. Out of seven petitioners, five petitioners were present during search of the record and panchanama was also drawn on 28.03.2011. Efforts were made to search and find out the record on 18.04.2011 and the documents, which could be traced out, are handed over to the petitioners and accordingly, report is submitted along with the affidavit on the last date of hearing i.e. on 20.04.2011. The copies of permit and chalan were traceable from the record and accordingly said copies were given to the petitioners on 18.04.2011. It is also stated that rest of the record asked for by the petitioners could not be traced out though the record was searched in the presence of petitioners and it is not clear whether the said record was in fact collected by the Investigating Officer nor petitioners produced any {4} cp16909.odt documents/receipts before the authorities showing that they had deposited the said record. 5 Considering the affidavit tendered by the Tahsildar and considering the fact that sincere efforts were made to make available the record, as required by the petitioners, I am of the view that there is no willful disobedience of the directives issued by the Division Bench of this Court by the respondents. It is not disputed that on every occasion, in presence of petitioners, the record, which was in the custody of Investigating Officer, was examined and whatever copies of the documents were found, same were handed over to the petitioners. 6 It is the grievance of petitioners that due to non availability of record, prejudice is caused to them in taking their defence and putting up their case effectively before the authorities. It need not be recorded that if the allegations are made and the authorities are not in a position to substantiate the allegations on the basis of documentary evidence, petitioners can, obviously, claim benefit during the conduct of inquiry/prosecution. 7 So far as this Contempt Petition is concerned, I am convinced that the authorities have taken sincere efforts and tried to satisfy requirement of petitioners in respect of recovery of record or copies thereof. There does not appear to be any willful {5} cp16909.odt disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The concerned respondents have also tendered unconditional and unqualified apology to this Court for the lapses on their part. The apology is accepted. Considering facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that no action is required to be taken in this Contempt Petition. 8 Contempt Petition stands rejected. Notice discharged. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cp16909