1 C.P.355.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 355 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2011 Mrs. Bina W/o Yogesh Malpani R/o Gut No. 123, AT Post Eklagna Tq. Dharangaon, Ta. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.R.F.Totla,Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP appearing for respondents. 2. This Court has passed detailed orders time 2 C.P.355.11 to time on 05.09.2011, 14.09.2011 and 12.10.2011, therefore it is not necessary to burden present order with reiteration of the contents of those orders. 3. This matter was listed on 12.10.2011 when learned AGP appearing for the Superintendent of Police Jalgaon sought a week’s adjournment so as to enable the Superintendent of Police Jalgaon to comply with the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court of which disobedience has been alleged in this Contempt Petition. 4. In Additional affidavit it is stated by the Superintendent of Police that he himself has decided the application of the petitioner and passed the order on 15.10.2011. The copy of the order dated 15.10.2011 is also placed on record at Exh. R-1 with the additional affidavit in reply. 5. Mr. Totla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that affidavits 3 C.P.355.11 filed by the Superintendent of Police in this Contempt Proceedings are mis-leading and it is beyond comprehension that officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, in spite of specific directions given by the Division Bench of this Court, directed his sub-ordinate to decide the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner invited my attention to the contents of rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner and submitted that in the present case respondent No.2 has made deliberate and calculated attempt for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The direction of the Division Bench of this Court to pass appropriate orders on the application of the petitioner was to be complied with on or before 28.07.2011, however, till 15.10.2011 the Superintendent of Police did not comply the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court, therefore, it clearly amounts to breach/disobedience of the order of the Division Bench. 4 C.P.355.11 6. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment in the case of Kopal Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2004(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri) 685 and submitted that affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police on earlier occasion clearly admits that there is clear breach of the order passed by the Division Bench, in that case subsequent stand taken by him may not be accepted and in the light of observations in the aforesaid judgment, counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No. 2 alleged contemnor is required to be dealt with all rigorous and no mercy should be shown to him though he has tendered unconditional apology in his affidavit in reply. 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Para Nos 2 and 3 from the additional affidavit in reply of the Superintendent of Police Jalgaon reads thus: “2. At the outset, I am tendering my 5 C.P.355.11 unconditional apology of this Hon’ble High Court and same may kindly be accepted. I say and submit that, I have highest respect and regards of this Hon’ble High Court and its order. 3. I respectfully say and submit that, since 28 years I am serving in Police Department such mistake is not happen in my service carrier, this deponent undertake in future I will take care and caution to make compliance of the order of Hon’ble Court within prescribed period as directed by this Hon’ble Court. Hence, I again tender unconditional apology before this Hon’ble Court for which incontinence is caused to this Hon’ble Court the same may kindly be accepted, therefore, this deponent pray that the contempt notice issued against this deponent may kindly be dropped.” 8. The Superintendent of Police not only has tendered unconditional apology in para Nos. 2 of the additional affidavit in reply but in Para No.3 solemn undertaking is given that in future he 6 C.P.355.11 will take care and caution to make compliance of the orders of the Court within prescribed period as directed by the Courts. Once again unconditional apology is tendered in para no. 3 of the additional affidavit in reply. . It is true that the respondent NO. 2 is holding responsible and key post at District level and it is beyond comprehension that, he did not properly understand the directions given by the learned Division Bench of this Court. The direction which was given by the Division Bench was unambiguous and clear direction to the Superintendent of Police to decide the application of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of order, and said direction was not capable for any other interpretation. Therefore, when the directions which were given by the Division Bench are clear and unambiguous, it is difficult to digest that how the Superintendent of Police did not understand what are the directions of the Division Bench. It is also not in dispute that on 7 C.P.355.11 22.07.2011 the copy of the order of the Division Bench was available to the Superintendent of Police. . However, real question which arise for consideration in this Contempt Petition is that, “whether respondent NO.2 i.e. Superintendent of Police has willfully disobeyed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court?” In my opinion, in the facts of this case and in view of the explanation offered by the Superintendent of Police in his additional affidavit in reply, certainly this is a case of disobedience, however, certainly it is not the case of willful disobedience. Disobedience is also to the extent that the order of the Division Bench was supposed to be complied with by the Superintendent of Police on or before 28.07.2011, however, the application of the petitioner is decided on 15.10.2011. Therefore, application of the petitioner has been decided beyond stipulated period prescribed by the Division Bench of this 8 C.P.355.11 Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram and others, reported in (2000)1 SCC 766 held that ‘even where the order of Court is complied with, subsequent to receipt of notice of contempt, Court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with action for contempt.’ 9. In the light of the averments in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, I am inclined to hold that there is mistake committed by the Superintendent of police, however, certainly there is no willful disobedience on his part to commit breach/violate the directions given by the Division Bench. Ultimately, on 15.10.2011 the Superintendent of Police has passed appropriate order and if the petitioner has any grievance, appropriate remedy is provided under Law for redressal of grievance, however, in the present contempt proceedings no any further direction can be given. However, the word of “caution” is 9 C.P.355.11 required to be addressed to the Superintendent of Police Jalgaon that, he is holding key post in the Police Administration and he should be cautious in future to comply with the directions given by the Courts within stipulated period. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. Sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] MTK