1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.25 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2590 OF 2004 (Shashikant s/o Tulsiramji Tarale and others vs. Kailash G. Khamre and another __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.G. Loney, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.2. --------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2011 The above contempt petition has been appearing on board from time to time. During the course of hearing of the above contempt petition before this Court, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed on record a pursis bearing Stamp No. 59/2011 dated 27/7/2011 to which is annexed the order dated 26/7/2011, which is an order issued purportedly in compliance of the judgment and order dated 22/8/2006 passed by this Court. In terms of the said order dated 2 26/7/2011, the petitioners are granted appointments from 26/7/2011 and it is, inter alia, stipulated that the benefits, etc. would be subject to the approval of the State Government. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that the said order is not in compliance with the order of which contempt has been alleged as the appointments of the petitioners have to be made from the date of their initial appointments, as also the consequential benefits would be based on that, and the same also cannot be subject to the approval of the State Government. Upon this, Shri Loney, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, makes a statement that necessary rectification of the shortcomings as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners would be done and a corrigendum would be issued in that regard. The learned Counsel further states that the order of which contempt is alleged would be complied with in its true spirit and the petitioners would have no cause for complaint in future. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has placed on record a communication dated 3 10/8/2011 received by him from the Registrar of the University where in para (2) it has been stated that the University is ready to rectify the defects in the order dated 26/7/2011 vis-a-vis the order dated 22/8/2006 passed by this Court. In my view, in the light of the aforesaid facts, it is hoped and expected that compliance of the order dated 22/8/2006 passed by this Court would be in the true sense of the terms and that the petitioners would have no cause to approach this Court once again. It is also hoped and expected that the necessary rectification would be done within four weeks from date. With the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition is disposed of. The said communication dated 10/8/2011 is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2010 The above civil application has been filed by the respondent no.1 for review of the order dated 17/8/2010 whereby the respondent no.1 was directed 4 to deposit costs of rupees ten thousand to be payable to each of the petitioners in view of the conduct of the respondent no.1, which has been noted in the said order. In view of the fact that the respondent no.1 had already filed the above civil application for review, by an order dated 20/12/2010 passed in the above contempt petition, this Court in terms observed that the payment of the costs would be decided in the review application and this was as per the understanding of the parties. The above contempt petition has been disposed of in view of the amends made by the respondent no1 by issuing the order dated 26/7/2011 whereby the petitioners have been given the appointments. The respondent no.1 has further assured that corrective steps would be taken so as to comply with the order dated 22/8/2006 passed by this Court, of which contempt is alleged, in its true spirit. In my view, since amends have been made by the respondent no.1 albeit belatedly, the said factor would have to be taken into consideration whilst imposing costs on the respondent no.1. 5 No doubt, the events, which have occurred prior to issuance of the said order dated 26/7/2011 do not make a happy reading and this Court in its various orders passed since the time the above contempt petition came up for hearing had occasion to deprecate the conduct of the respondent no.1, some costs would have to be therefore imposed on the respondent no.1 so that a message is sent that the orders of this Court cannot be treated in the manner sought to be done in the present case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, it would be just and proper to impose costs of rupees five thousand each payable to each of the six petitioners, which would make a total amount of rupees thirty thousand. The balance amount of rupees thirty thousand is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent no.1. The civil application is, therefore, allowed to be aforesaid extent by reducing the costs to rupees thirty thousand in total. In view of disposal of the above contempt petition, all other civil applications accordingly stand 6 disposed of. JUDGE khj