1 CP-429-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5674 OF 2008 Col. A.D. Nargolkar ... Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Col. A.D.Nargolkar, petitioner in person present. Mr. S.B.Shetye, i/b. Ajay Patil, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th October, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned Counsel for the Union Government. 2. In Writ Petition NO.5674/2008, filed by the present petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 1.8.2008 :- "1. Counsel appearing for the respondent states that they have already provided copy and also states that they will provide another copy of the documents within two weeks from today, of the findings of the court of inquiry proceedings, so far as the court of enquiry proceedings 2 CP-429-10.sxw finds the petitioner guilty of any charge. In view of the statement made nothing survives in this petition. The same is disposed of accordingly." According to the petitioner, this order has not been complied as the documents supporting the findings of the Court of Inquiry and opinion as well as the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry about punishment have not been supplied to him. It is contended in the affidavit in reply that the findings of the Court of Inquiry have been supplied to him. A copy of the same is filed by the petitioner himself as Exhibit "C" to the petition. The question is whether under the said order, the petitioner was also entitled to be supplied with oral and documentary evidence which was collected by the Court of Inquiry before giving findings and also whether he was entitled to any other opinion of the Court of Inquiry, bedsides what was opined in the said findings which are supplied to him as well as the recommendations. The learned Counsel for the Union Government rightly points out that the order dated 1.8.2008 does not speak in so many words that the Union Government would supply him the oral and documentary evidence collected by the Court of Inquiry or that they would also supply him any other opinion or recommendations besides the findings, while according to the petitioner that is unbuilt in the said order. In my opinion, it is a question of 3 CP-429-10.sxw interpretation of that order. The order is silent about the oral and documentary evidence as well as about separate opinion and the recommendations. If the petitioner feels that it should have been mentioned in the said order, he may move the concerned Division Bench seeking clarification of the said order. 3. In view of the above, the Contempt Petition stands disposed of with no further action with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Division Bench to seek review/clarification of the order dated 1.8.2008. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)