1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 162/2010 in Cri. WRIT PETITION NO. 63/2010 (Arvind Narayanrao Nandanwar vrs. Dr. Sudhirkumar Goyal, Principal Secretary and others) ................................................................................................................................................... ...... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... ...... Mr. S.V.Sohoni, counsel for petitioner Mr. A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for respondent. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2010. 1] This contempt petition complains about the willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 23rd April, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 63/2010. This court had recorded the statement made on affidavit sworn by the Director of Marketing, stating that the enquiry in the matter would be completed within a period of two months. However, in spite of such statement, the enquiry has not been completed and therefore, this 2 contempt petition has been filed. 2] Shri Sohoni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have neither applied for extension of time to complete the enquiry, nor has completed the enquiry within a stipulated period of two months and hence, this amount to contempt of Court. 3] An affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2, stating that the petitioner had objected to the appointment of one Shri Kardak as an Enquiry Officer. This objection has been accepted by the State Government and the Enquiry Officer has been changed. It has further been stated that Criminal Application (APPW) No. 120/2010 was moved by the respondents for extension of time to complete the enquiry within a further period of four months, and this Court had granted such extension. According to the respondents, the enquiry was already completed within the stipulated period, however, at the request of the petitioner, an extended enquiry was undertaken and to complete the said enquiry, time was required to be extended . A further statement is made that the enqiry will be completed well within the time 3 extended by this Court by order dated 7th September, 2010. 4] In view of the fact that this Court has granted extension of time by further period of 4 months w.e.f. 7th September, 2001 and the extended period is yet to expire, the contempt petition is premature. It is the stand of the respondent that in fact the enquiry was completed within a stipulated period as per order dated 23rd April, 2010. but in view of the subsequent event of extending the scope of enquiry, the extension of time was sought, which has been granted. 5] In view of this, I do not find any substance in the complaint made in the instant contempt petition in respect of the non compliance of the order dated 23rd April, 2010. So far as the compliance of the order dated 7th September, 2010 is concerned, the petition is premature. In the result, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit