1 5347.11 Cri.Appln IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5347 OF 2011 in CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2009 Mahernosh H. Chenoy S/o Sri Hoshnag S. Chenoy APPLICANT VERSUS Satbirsingh S/o Sukhbirsing Chatwal RESPONDENT ..... Shri P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate applicant Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 8 th December, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused, 2. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the order of issuance of Rule in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1101/2009 was recalled in the absence of the applicant’s counsel and such course is not permissible in view of provisions of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Rule 5 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay Appellate Side Rules, 1960. 2 5347.11 Cri.Appln 3. Learned Advocate Shri K.C. Sant for respondent, submits that the order of issuance of Rule is not a judgment, and therefore, it is not covered by Section 362 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in any case. He submits that the provisions of law under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, warrants hearing of the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1101/2009 involving the issue of Criminal Contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the Bench comprising of two Judges i.e. Division Bench, and as such there was no illegality committed in recalling the order Issuing the Rule before it was signed, particularly when the relevant provisions of law were pointed out. It was further pointed out that such order issuing the Rule was not contemplated in law being bad by virtue of provision of Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. It is true that promptly order of issuing Rule was recalled. Though the order of issuance of Rule was recalled, yet the parties were directed to move the Division Bench for making further submissions on the issue, and to seek appropriate orders. There is merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate Shri K.C. Sant for respondent, and there has been no impropriety committed in recalling the order of issuing Rule. Objection to 3 5347.11 Cri.Appln Recalling Issuance of Rule therefore, stands dismissed and parties are directed to approach the Division Bench for appropriate orders. 5. Criminal Application No. 5347/2011 stands disposed off accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* December-11