1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.125 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5299 OF 1999 Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s The Deputy Director of Education, Opp.Red Temple, Camp Pune Station, Pune-7 & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.R.Kasle i/by Mr.R.D.Soni for the petitioners. Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for Respondent No.1, 3 and 5. Mr.G.S.Kulkarni i/by Mr.M.G.Kulkarni for Respondent No.4. CORAM: A.S.OKA, J. DATE: 25th November, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The breach alleged is of an order dated 19th June, 2000. The said order of the Division Bench records that the petitioners had made an application to the Director of Education (School Education, Pune) and to the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune for granting them the minority status. It is stated that similar application was made before the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Division Bench directed that the application made by the petitioners shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks from the date of the order and submit a compliance report to the Registrar of this Court. 2. In this contempt petition filed on 10.9.2001 the allegation is that no 2 order has been passed by the State Government regarding grant of minority status to the petitioners. The order dated 11.6.2002 passed by this Court shows that the State Government issued letter dated 23.5.2002 to the petitioners informing the petitioners that in view of the pendency of the matter before the Apex Court involving the similar issue, the decision cannot be taken on the application of the petitioners and the decision would be taken after the Apex Court decides the matter. There is reply dated 16.7.2002 filed by Dr.S.N.Pathan, Director of Higher Education on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Respondents setting out the reasons as to why the order could not be complied with. The learned AGP has tendered an affidavit dated 11.3.2005 affirmed by Dr.S.N.Pathan to which a true copy of the order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the State Government has been annexed. The said order makes a reference to the order of this Court in the Writ Petition of which the breach is alleged, and it records that the status of minority institution has been granted for the academic year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 for running the senior colleges of the Arts, Science and Commerce faculties. Dr.S.N.Pathan has tendered an unconditional apology in the said affidavit dated 11.3.2005 for the inordinate delay in complying with the order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even the stand taken in the letter dated 23.5.2002 issued by the Government shows that there is clear defiance of the order of this Court. He 3 submitted that there is gross delay in complying with the order and the order is confined only to the two academic years in respect of the senior colleges. He submitted that there is no compliance with the order of this Court. The learned AGP invited attention of the Court to the averments made in both the affidavits and submitted that there was never any intention to defy the order of this Court. 4. I have given careful considerations to the submissions. The breach which is alleged is of the following part of the order of the Division Bench:- “The petitioner has already made an application for sanction of minority status to the Director of Education (School Education), Pune and the Education officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune. The petitioner has also made similar application before the Principal Secretary, Higher Education , Mantralaya, Mumbai. The State Government is directed to decide the petitioner’s application as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks from today and submit a compliance report to the Registrar of this Court.” 5. To the first reply dated 16.7.2002, a copy of letter dated 7.5.2002 of the State Government addressed to the Deputy Registrar of this Court is annexed. In the said letter it is stated that on the basis of the application made by the petitioners the State Government had sought opinion of the learned Advocate General. It is stated that initially the application made by the petitioners was being considered in the light of the order dated 29.1.2001 of the State Government and later on in terms of the Government Resolution dated 20.2.2002. The said letter records that the 4 matter of minority institutions was to be heard before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court on 2.4.2002 and therefore the State Government was awaiting decision of the Apex Court. In the affidavit various steps taken on the basis of the application made by the petitioners have been set out. 6. In the affidavit dated 11.3.2005 Dr.S.N.Pathan, 2nd contemnor, who is the Director of Education has tendered unconditional apology of himself and on behalf of 3rd Respondent. Alongwith the affidavit, the communication dated 4.3.2005 is placed on record which records the decision taken on the application of the petitioners. 7. In terms of the order of this Court, the State Government had submitted a report dated 7.5.2002 to the Registry of this Court setting out the reasons for delay in complying with the order of this Court. The stand taken therein is that the State Government was awaiting decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. It is true that there is a long delay in complying with the order of the Court. A decision has been taken on 4th March, 2005. 8. Apart from the fact that the 2nd Respondent has tendered an unconditional apology in the affidavit dated 11.3.2005, looking to the averments made in the first reply it cannot be said that there was any deliberate or willful disobedience of the order of this Court on the part of the contemnors. 5 9. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the State Government dated 4.3.2005, the petitioners can always adopt appropriate remedy in that behalf. Considering the discussion made above, this is not a case where the contemnors can be penalised. Hence, notice issued to the Respondents is discharged. Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)