( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 107 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6287 OF 2008 Kum. Madhuri Sureshrao Arya (minor) Through Suresh Parashuram Arya .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri M.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Sagar – Killarikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 21.07.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri. M.S. Choudhari for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Dound, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Adv.Shri B.L. Sagar (Killarikar), Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. It is case of the petitioner that this Court in ( 2 ) Writ Petition No. 6287 of 2008 decided on 22.10.2008 directed respondent No.5 in the writ petition to decide caste claim of the petitioner before 31.01.2009. Copy of the order is produced at Exh.”A”. It is say of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee on 05.11.2008 and filed her say and in para 5 she stated that everything is before the Scrutiny Committee; the petitioner did not want to lead any documentary evidence and the matter might be reserved for judgment. Thereafter, as 31.01.2009 was last date for judgment, the petitioner issued notice to respondent No.2 – Committee stating that there is contempt of Court as the decision was not rendered till that date. 3. Copy of the judgment passed by the Scrutiny Committee is produced at Exh. “E”. Said judgment discloses the date of outward number as 31.01.2009/02.02.2009. The earlier date is typed and the later date is in hand. Adv. Shri B.L. Sagar (Killarikar) for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has produced original papers of the matter before the Scrutiny Committee and pointed out that the committee has held its meeting on 05.11.2008, 17.12.2008 and 31.01.2009. On ( 3 ) 05.11.2008 the petitioner and her father along with their advocate had appeared. On that day there was no seating of the committee and therefore the petitioner’s father was requested to appear before the Committee on 19.11.2008 and written reply given was taken on record. On 17.12.2008 the father of the petitioner and her advocate were present. They were personally heard. Both stated that they did not want to lead evidence and the matter be fixed for decision. Then on 31.01.2009 when the petitioner was present along with her advocate before the Committee, both again made it clear that they did not want to give any more explanation. The say filed by the present petitioner which is almost notice for contempt of Court was taken on record and on same day the committee deliberated over the matter and decided to invalidate the caste claim. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering para 4 of the claim petition, it does not appear that the committee has not decided the matter on 31.01.2009. It is possible that transcription of the dictated judgment might not have been ready on that day and so after it was ready the transcribed judgment might have been signed. It is worth noting that 31.01.2009 was Saturday and 01.02.2009 was Sunday. ( 4 ) 4. Considering the submissions made before me and considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Ors., V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., (1999) 7 S.C.C.569, in my considered opinion, this is not a case in which it can be said that there is deliberate or willful disobedience and as such this is not case where contempt can be said to have been committed. 5. In these circumstances, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/cp107.09