1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2006 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2006 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 117 OF 2006 Bhimrao Vithal Patil ... Petitioner Vs. Shankar Yashvan Bansode & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. I.M.Khairdi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Advocate, for the respondents Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. DATE: 8th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By an order dated 18.10.2005, this Court had directed the Assistant Charity Commissioner to appoint a responsible officer to control and look after the entire election process right from stage one till the stage of 2 declaring the result of the election. The election of the trust was to be held within six weeks from the date of that order. In the meantime, 13 persons named by the IInd Additional District Judge, Pandharpur, were to take the charge of the trust with certain restrictions. It appears that as per the said order, the Assistant Charity Commissioner did appoint an officer and election was held and on the basis of that election, change report has been submitted which is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that inspite of the above order, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also appointed respondent No.3, who is an Advocate, as the election officer and he independently claims to have held election and on the basis of that, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed change report and thus the respondents have committed contempt of this Court by flouting the order dated 18.10.2005. 4. Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 contents that the act of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in appointing respondent No.3 as an election officer was, at the most, the result of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the order of this Court, but it does not amount to contempt of the Court. 3 5. It appears that both the change reports are pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Naturally, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could not have appointed any person to hold the election in the face of the order passed by this Court. The election could be held only by an officer appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. As such, the election held under the supervision of respondent No.3 appointed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will be nonest and shall be completely ignored. As far as the change report submitted on the basis of the election held by the responsible officer appointed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is concerned, that can be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on its own merits. 6. In view of the circumstances and the above observations, I find that no further action is required on this Contempt Petition. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)