1 14. nms-1448-04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1448 OF 2004 IN SUO MOTU CIVIL CONTEMPT REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2003 IN BOMBAY UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE TRIBUNAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2002 IN APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2001. Prof. Mangesh P. Kinare. ..Plaintiff. vs. The Principal, Chetana’s H.S. College of Commerce & Economics & Ors. ..Defendant. .... Mr. Atul G. Damle, for Plaintiff. Mr. R.S. Pai, a/w. Ms. P. Dedhia, i/b. Sanjay Udheshi, for Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. P.M. Palshikar, for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011. P.C. : By this Notice of Motion, the Petitioner prays that the order dated 28th April 2003 passed in Suo Motu Civil Contempt Reference No. 15 of 2003 be recalled and this Court be pleased to take appropriate action against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Suo Motu Contempt Reference No. 15 of 2003 for not implementing the order of the learned College Tribunal and direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the Petitioner to his original post as per the order dated 24th October 2001 passed by the University Tribunal. 2 14. nms-1448-04 2. The Suo Motu Contempt Reference No. 15 of 2003 was admittedly disposed of by an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.] which reads as under :- “Heard both sides. It is asserted on affidavit by the College that the Respondent has fully complied with the directions issued by this Court. The details regarding payments made are already placed on record. Besides, the Respondents have explained the circumstances in which the compliance was delayed. In the circumstances, no further action is warranted. Petition disposed of.” 3. After the said order was passed by the learned Single Judge, the Petitioner moved a Contempt Petition being No. 112 of 2003. In paragraph 5 of the said Petition, the Petitioner contended that he was never issued any notice of the above Reference coming up on the board of this Court and in view of the same, the Petitioner could not remain present in the proceeding before this Court. He further alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the Petitioner, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 misled this Court by filing an Affidavit and incorrectly stating therein that the Respondent No.1 had complied with the directions and the payment has been made to the Petitioner. The Petitioner further contended that the alleged compliance is not as per the order passed by the College Tribunal, who has directed reinstatement of the Petitioner to its original post. The Petitioner therefore prayed that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act and pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to comply with the order dated 24th October 2001 and reinstate the Petitioner forthwith in his original post as a full time Lecturer in Accountancy. The said Contempt Petition was heard by the same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 28th April 2003 3 14. nms-1448-04 disposing of the Suo Motu Contempt Reference No. 15 of 2003. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 22nd April 2004 after recording that the Petition has failed to point out as to which of the statements made by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on Affidavit were false and that no case for interference is made out by the Petitioner, dismissed the Contempt Petition. 4. The Petitioner has now taken out the present Notice of Motion for setting aside the order dated 28th April 2003 on the same ground that the Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before this Court, contains false statements. In view of the contents of paragraph 5 of the earlier Contempt Petition No. 112 of 2003, namely that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a false Affidavit, the learned Single Judge had inquired from the Petitioner as to which of the statements made by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in their Affidavit, were false. However, the Petitioner failed to point out the same and the Contempt Petition was dismissed on the ground that no case of interference is made out by the Petitioner. By this Notice of Motion, the Petitioner is once again advancing the same argument that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained orders by filing a false Affidavit, with an additional relief that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside, which cannot be allowed. In view thereof, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]