1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 153/2006 IN Writ Petition No. 4533/2004 (Ejaj Syed Nijam & others VERSUS Shashikant M. Hadgal & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. A.S. Mardikar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, counsel for the R-1. Mr. Kankale, counsel for the R-3. Mr. Ashish Chaware, counsel for the R-6 & 7. Ms. Shweta Wankhede, counsel for the R-2 & 5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2008. Heard. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 05.10.2004 in Writ Petition No.4533/2004. The order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 05.10.2004 reads thus----- “Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate for the petitioners. Notice before admission returnable after three weeks. In the meanwhile, status-quo in relation to mutation proceedings.” 2 it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though this Court had directed to respondents to maintain status quo in relation to the mutation proceedings, the respondent no.1 took law in his own hands and deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court on 05.10.2004 and recorded the entries in the name of one Pramodsingh Gaherwar, respondent no.6 to this petition. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the copy of the order passed by the Court on 05.10.2004 was duly served on the Naib Tahsildar and in spite of the knowledge of the passing of the order dated 05.10.2004, the mutation entries have been deliberately changed. On issuance of notice, the respondent no.1 filed an affidavit on 21.04.2007. It is submitted by the respondent no.1 in the affidavit that after the order of status quo was passed by this Court on 05.10.2004, the mutation entires, which were wrongly recorded in the name of respondent no.6, were deleted from the 7/12 extract with a view to maintain the order of status quo. It is further mentioned in the affidavit that the subject matter of the Writ Petition No.4533/2004 pertained to the mutation entires for the year 1997-98 to 1999-2000. it is then submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that the 3 order dated 27.04.2005 was passed by the respondent no.1 on an application filed by the respondent no.6 for recording of mutation entires for the year 2001 to the year 2005. According to the respondent no.1, since the subject matter of the Writ Petition No.4533/2004 pertained to the mutation entires for the year 1997 to the year 2000 and since the correction was made in pursuance of the order passed by the respondent no.1 on 27.04.2005 on an application filed by respondent no.1 for correction of records for the year 2001 to the year 2005, the respondent no.1 believed that the order of maintaining the status quo did not pertain to the entries for the year 2001 to the year 2005. It is then brought to the notice of this Court that as soon as the order of status quo was brought to the notice of of respondent no.1, the entries recorded in the name of respondent no.6 came to be immediately deleted. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that it is amply clear from the aforesaid facts that respondent no.1 had not deliberately or intentionally flouted the order passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.4533/2004. Shri Mardikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has verified the aforesaid position 4 and is satisfied that the entires which were wrongly made after the order dated 05.10.2004 are deleted and in stead the name of the petitioner is recorded in the 7/12 extract. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the respondent no.1 cannot be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act because the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4533/2004 on 05.10.2004 is not intentionally and deliberately flouted by the respondent no.1. In view of the aforesaid position, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE