1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.133 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2004. Pramod s/o Bhimrao More. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri K.N. Lokhande, Advocate holding for Shri B.V. Wagh, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Shri D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for State. Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for R.No.4. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 5th October, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition was heard by this Court on 6th September, 2004 when this Court admitted the contempt petition. 2. It is not in dispute that the order dated 7th April, 2004 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 773 of 2004 2 has been complied with by the respondent on 4th September, 2004. The only question remains to be adjudicated is as to whether the seniority was published by the respondents within eight weeks from the order passed by the learned Division Bench. It appears that the learned Division Bench on 7th April, 2004 directed the respondents to prepare and publish final seniority list within eight weeks from the date of order i.e. 7th April, 2004. According to the said direction, the final seniority list should have been published before 7th June, 2004. However, the same has been prepared and published on 4th September, 2004. 3. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, since the order of the Division Bench dated 7th April, 2004 has not been complied with by the respondents within eight weeks as directed, there is willful disobedience of the said order and deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to violate the said order. 3 4. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State invited my attention to the affidavits-in-reply filed by one Mr. Anil Kadoba Chavan, working as Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik at the relevant time. He submitted that in the said affidavits sufficient explanation has been offered by the respondents for their inability to comply with the directions of the Division Bench within the stipulated period. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the fact that the respondents, in their respective affidavits, have tendered unconditional apology for their inability to comply with the directions of the Division Bench within the stipulated period. 5. It is not in dispute that the final seniority list is prepared and published on 3rd September, 2004. It appears that from the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. Anil Kadoba Chavan working as Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik at the relevant time, that while finalising the seniority list, respondent No.4 society has to 4 give individual notices to all the employees who are related to the seniority list and after hearing them, the seniority list can be finalized. The procedure is required to be followed while finalizing the seniority list. It is further mentioned in para 8 of the reply that civil application was filed for extension of time before this Court. In para 9, it is stated that the final seniority list of 1725 employees of the Bank was difficult to be prepared and finalized within the said period of eight weeks. 6. The another affidavit-in-reply has been filed by one Mr. Nilkanth Dnyandeo Kare, working as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that after completing all formalities and following the procedure, the final seniority list was published on 4.9.2004. In para 2 of the affidavit unconditional apology is tendered by respondents1 to 3 for not complying with the order within eight weeks from date thereof. 7. It is submission of the learned A.G.P. and 5 the learned Counsel for respondent No.4 that in view of the circumstances explained in the affidavits filed by the respondents, there was delay in complying with the order with the stipulated period. Taking into consideration the explanation offered in the affidavits and the fact that the order of Division Bench has been complied with on 4th September, 2004, in my opinion, there is no willful disobedience or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents to violate the order or not to comply with the same within the period of eight weeks. The respondents authorities have categorically explained the reasons for the delay occurred. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar v. Dhani Ram, (2002) 1 SCC 766, cautioning the courts while dealing with the powers of contempt observed that the court should be generous in discharging the contemnor if he tenders an apology to the satisfaction of the court and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of the above, I do not think 6 that there was any willful or deliberate attempt in not complying with the order of the Division Bench of this Court within the stipulated period. The contempt petition is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. Notice stands discharged. Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. PLK/* 7 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.133 OF 2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2004. 5th October, 2010. For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the order? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } Yes 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the order should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Prakash Kadam] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge.