1 cp184.06 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.184 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6246 OF 2004 [ Dilip s/o Dagdu Sinare vs. Shri. Sharadchandsra Bhargav, Executive Vice-President, Larsen and Toubro Ltd., Mumbai & Ors. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 29TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : . When this contempt petition was called out for hearing in the morning session, none appears for the petitioner and also for respondent No.2. The matter was kept back. Even on second call, none appears for the parties. 2. It appears that, Advocate on record Mr. Pradeep Shahane has communicated to the 2 cp184.06 petitioner his inability to appear in the matter. It appears that, there is no response from the petitioner to his letter dated 15-06-2011. Therefore, he has written letter to the Registry on 02-07-2011 stating his inability to appear in the matter and further request is made to discharge him from the proceedings of this case. 3. From perusal of order dated 10-10-2006 it appears that, this Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondent No.2. In pursuant to the said notice, respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply. 4. Once the notices are issued in the contempt proceedings, the matter necessarily becomes between the Court and the alleged contemnors. Role of the petitioner becomes merely informant and he 3 cp184.06 is not a litigant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. Union of India and another reported in (1998) 4 S.C.C. 409. . Therefore, though the petitioner is not present, this Court has requested the learned A.G.P. to assist in the matter. Upon perusal of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 and in particular para-10 it is stated that, in view of the modified order of this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount whatsoever during the pendency of the Reference. It is further stated in the said paragraph that, the Company has been depositing 50% of the last drawn wages of the petitioner at the time of dismissal as per order of this Court and the same is being transferred by the office of the Court in a nationalized bank and therefore, neither the Company nor any of the 4 cp184.06 respondents in the contempt petition have committed any breach of the order passed by this Court. 5. In the light of affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2, in my opinion, there is no any disobedience much less willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, nothing further survives for consideration in this contempt petition. Same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11