1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEE NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2009. IN WRIT PETITION NO 2049 OF 2006 Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, court’s orders or directions and registrar’s order. Court’s or Judge’s orders 1. Heard Mr. F. R. Tandale Advocate for contempt petitioner. He pointed out that this court has passed order calling R & P. The order to that effect is produced at Exh.”A” with the contempt petition. 2. The learned Advocate pointed out that the order passed by the Court on 18th March,2006, in Writ Petition No. 2049/2006, calling record and proceedings was brought to the notice of Deputy Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, by application Exh.38. The copy of Roznama of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner 2 shows that the said application was taken on record and therefore, Shri Tandale, Advocate for the petitioner sought adjournments. Thereafter, the matter was further adjourned on 24.4.2006, 11.05.2006, 20.6.2006 and 11.07.2006. 3. It is stated that the matter was decided in the month of November,2006 It is stated by him that, not sending R & P. inspite of order of this Court is contempt. The learned advocate has also brought to my notice the order dated 19.06.2009 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2049/2006 with C. A. No.4070/2006. Para No.2 of the order is as follows . “The main grievance in the petition was that Deputy Charity Commissioner was bias and, therefore, transfer petition was filed. The transfer petition, however, came to be rejected by the Commissioner. Mr. Tandale, learned Advocate states that now the matter is decided by the Deputy Charity 3 Commissioner though the R & P. is called by this Court. Liberty to initiate contempt proceedings if any order is flouted by the authority including the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Nothing remains in the petition. In view of final decision rendered by the Deputy Charity Commissioner which is already challenged in the District Court.” 4. In the first place, this contempt petition is filed on 31st July,2009. The act is beyond limitation as per section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In view of the fact that the act which was complained as act of contempt was committed some time in 2006 the petition can not be said to be within limitation. Therefore, contempt petition is dismissed on the point of limitation. Date : 28.08.2009 ( P.R.BORKAR, J) MTK/cp254/2009.