1 Contempt Petition No.128/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.128 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6309 OF 2010 Bhusawal Division Railway Contractors Association ... PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri Pramod Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Shri A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner Shri M.N. Nawandar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4 to 6 ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 18th July, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Contempt Petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 1.10.2010 in Writ Petition No. 6309/2010. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this Court has specifically directed to the respondents that the respondents would be authorised to recover the cess only when the agreement wherein the clause as specified vide communication dated 9th of July 2008 is included. It is further observed that, needless to state 2 Contempt Petition No.128/2011 that in case of the agreement wherein such clause is not included, the respondents would not be entitled to recover the cess. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that, contrary to the directions issued in the order of this Court, the communication dated 3.2.2011 has been addressed by one Shri R.K.Yadav to M/s Indrajeetsingh, member of the petitioner’s association. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents, relying upon the submissions in the affidavit-in-reply and Circular dated 7.7.2011, submits that, it is true that the amount towards cess was retained though there was no clause in the agreement, however, subsequently, the circular is issued and all the concerned are instructed by said circular that no recovery towards welfare cess shall be done where no enabling clause to that effect exist in the contract agreement and wherever such recovery has been made, it shall be refunded back. 4. In the light of affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent and Annexure R-1 to the affidavit-in-reply, in my opinion, corrective steps have been taken by the respondents and it is also stated in the affidavit-in-reply that there was no intention on the part of 3 Contempt Petition No.128/2011 respondents to breach or violate the order passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, no further fruitful purpose would be served by adjudicating this Contempt Petition. Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp128.11