1 21cp191-11 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3439 OF 2008 Nitin Kumar Hanumant Salunke .. Petitioner V/s. Dr. Mahesh N.Salunke Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Pramod Patil i/b. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kale for the petitioner. Mr. Asif I. Patel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S. M. Kamble for respondent Nos.3 to 5. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The breach alleged is of order dated 25th February, 2011. The relevant part of the said order reads thus: “1. ..... In my view, taking into consideration the allegations which are made by both the parties against each other, it would be appropriate if the fresh elections are held by the Returning Officer who is appointed by respondent No.8. The Returning Officer should preferably be a person, working in the Cooperative Department who is conversant with the process of holding elections. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of. The elections should be held within a period of 8 weeks. Respondent No.8 Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies shall appoint the Returning Officer within one week from today and thereafter set out fresh 2 21cp191-11 procedure of holding elections. In this view of the matter, the writ petition has become infructuous and therefore, the same is dismissed.” 2. It is not in dispute that the Returning Officer was appointed in terms of the order and the election has been held. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the election was held on the basis of the list of voters prepared by the managing committee the term of which had already expired. In short, the contention is that though the election is held, there are illegalities associated with the election. The direction of this Court was to the Deputy Registrar to appoint a Returning Officer for holding a fresh election. The Deputy Registrar has complied with the said order. If there are any illegalities committed in the election, it is for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceeding in that behalf. 3. Suffice is to say that there is substantial compliance of the order passed by this Court. Hence, no case is made out to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Contempt Petition is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)