( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 48 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2602 OF 2005 Ramhari Dagdu Gavhane .. Petitioner Versus Dnyanoba Sonwane, Education Officer, .. Respondents Zilla Parishad, Beed and anr. Shri Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 31.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. As against present contempt petitioner one Pratap Navale had filed Writ Petition No. 2602 of 2005 for directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 including the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Beed, by writ of mandamus to hold enquiry against present petitioner and take legal action. This Court by order dated 8th August, 2005, dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the petitioner has no right to the post held by respondent No.6 and therefore the Court declined to entertain the petition. The ( 2 ) order is reproduced as under :- “By the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking directions to hold an enquiry against Respondent no.6, who is presently working as Assistant Teacher. The services of Respondent No.6 were terminated and in the vacancy so caused, the petitioner came to be appointed a stop gap arrangement. The order of appointment itself makes it clear that appointment of the petitioner was pending decision of the appeal preferred by Respondent No.6 before the Tribunal. At a later point of time, the dispute is resolved and the management decided to reinstate respondent No.6. An order came to be passed in consent terms in writ petition. The petitioner, in view of the reinstatement of Respondent No.6, has been terminated from service. It is in this fact situation that the petitioner questions eligibility of Respondent No.6 and seeks further directions to make enquiry in that regard. As the petitioner has no right to the post held by Respondent No.6, we decline to entertain the petition and the same is summarily rejected. 2. It is also clear that thereafter said Pratap Navale filed criminal complaint against present contempt petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for preparing forged and fraudulent documents and obtaining admission for B.Ed. course. Said order was challenged in Criminal Application No. 123 of 2007 and the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate were stayed as per order dated 27.04.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.2 Anant Dane issued ( 3 ) notice dated 20.12.2008. The notice was given to the President / Secretary of the Institution in which the present petitioner was working as a teacher. Therein the earlier correspondence was referred to and it was stated that the enquiry should have been made and action should have been taken against the present petitioner in respect of creation of forged documents. It is also observed in para 2 of the notice that in reply dated 08.08.2008 by the Institution, there was reference to the decision in the writ petition, but it is said that it has no concern and said Gavhane has committed breach of Rule 28 of Act of 1981. If no action is taken, action will be taken against the management of the institution or Shri Gavhane for misleading the Government. It is said that this notice to the institution amounts to contempt of Court. 3. I have reproduced the order dated 08.08.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2602 of 2005. The Court declined to enter into merits of the matter holding that Pratap Navale who was writ petitioner had no right to the post of teacher held by respondent No.6 and therefore the Court declined to entertain the petition. It cannot be said that this decision ( 4 ) in any way prevents the respondents in the writ petition from independently enquiring into the allegations made by Pratap Navale. I am not satisfied that the notice dated 20.12.2008 amounts to contempt of Court. In the circumstances, this Contempt Petition is disposed of. However, the Contempt Petitioner is at liberty to pursue any other remedy that may be available to him in law. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cp48.09