1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7647 OF 2006 The Aurangabad Ginning Pressing Factory Jafar Gate, Aurangabad. Through its G.P.A. Holder Shri.Kantilal Hiralal Mithawala, Aged : 75 years, Occ : Service, R/o Supari Hanuman Road, Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. R. Gopal, Age : 58 years, Occ : Service, Working as a Additional Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Industrial Assurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai. 2. Smt.Sharwari Gokhale, Age : Major, Occ : Service, Working as a Additional Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Industrial Assurance Building, Churchgate, Mumbai. 3. Smt.Sushil Kaur W/o Sukhbirsingh Chatwal Age : 62 years, Occ : Household, R/o Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 4. Gurbirsingh S/o Sukhbirsingh Chhatwal Age : 40 years, Occ : Business, R/o Raj Tara, Bunglow, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. 5. Satbirsingh S/o Sukhbirsingh Chhatwal Age : 38 years, Occ : Business, R/o As above. RESPONDENTS 2 .... Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D. V. Tele, AGP for respondent no.1 and 2. .... (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :14th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner extensively. The learned Counsel while arguing the contempt petition has taken recourse of the judgment in Second Appeal and observations of the Court in the Second Appeal. According to the learned Counsel the directions in Writ Petition No.7647/2006 dated 13th December, 2005 are not complied with by the Revenue Authorities particularly City Survey Authorities and hence the contempt. 2. In order to stress his point on the alleged contempt, the Counsel referred para no.7 of the order dated 20.07.2006 in Writ Petition No.7647/2005 which conceives as under :- "The learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 submitted that even the issue regarding the validity of the General power of attorney 3 furnished by the Petitioner should be permitted to be agitated before the Principal Secretary. Since all contentions are kept open and the matter is remanded back to decide the Appeal afresh in the light of the decision of this Court passed in Second Appeal No.189 of 1979 on 16.12.1991 and as rectified in Civil Application No.415 of 2003 by order dated 21.9.2004, it is not necessary to pass any further order in the matter." 3. Reading paragraph no.7 referred above, I do not find any specific directions by this Court to dispose of the matter or that matter is to be dealt with in particular line by the Competent Authority. During course of submission the Counsel also informs, these directions dated 13th December, 2005 are indeed followed as there is judgment from the Competent Authorities. It is grievance, said judgment is silent as to the rights of the present petitioner even non- est paragraphs of the Second Appeal No.189/1979 were referred. During the course of submission the Counsel also accepted, the judgment by the Competent Authorities is the subject of Writ Petition by the present petitioner before this Court. 4 4. Taking survey of above facts, apparently there is no disobedience or contempt of any order of this Court by any of the Authorities. Petition sans any merit, hence dismissed. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/cp1.09