- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.53 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.111 OF 2008 R.R. Tripathi .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Johny Joseph & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. R.R. Tripathi, Petitioner in-person. Mr. R.M. Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. D.A. Nalavade, Government Pleader for the State. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: 30TH JUNE, 2009 P.C: 1. The petitioner had instituted a public interest litigation {PIL (Lodging) No.30 of 2008}. A Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Learned Chief Justice, while disposing of the petition, observed in its Judgment dated 8th October, 2008 that the public interest litigation would hardly be maintainable . While referring to Rules 8 and 9 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, - 2 - 1954, the Division Bench observed that since the State of Maharashtra was already looking into the matter, there was hardly any occasion for the Court to interfere at that stage, particularly when it is a policy matter which squarely falls in the domain of the State Government . These observations are contained in paragraph 11 of the Judgment. The Division Bench while disposing of the petition issued the following directions in paragraph 12 of the Judgment: 12. For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in either of the contentions raised before us and would dispose of the Petition but with a further and clear direction to the State Government to ensure that persisting grievance of the concerned police officer against the cadre post should be looked into and appropriate measures be taken in terms of the Government of India s directives as well as Rules 8 and 9 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the State Government has not ensured that the persisting grievance in relation to the posting of non-cadre officers against cadre posts is looked into and that appropriate measures are - 3 - taken in terms of Government of India s directives and Rules 8 and 9. On the other hand, the Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there would hardly be any warrant for entertaining the contempt petition, particularly since the Division Bench had held that the PIL was not maintainable. The Learned Advocate General submitted that the observations and directives contained in paragraph 12 of the Judgment enure to the benefit of the concerned police officers and that the petitioner as a petitioner in a public interest litigation cannot seek the enforcement of those directions. 3. During the course of the hearing, the Learned Advocate General has stated that the transfers to the posts of Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police rank for the year 2009 are under process and that appropriate remedial measures shall be taken by the State Government in terms of the observations and directions of the Division Bench in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Judgment respectively while making the general transfers. The statement which has been made on behalf of the State is accepted. In view of the statement, no further directions are - 4 - necessary in the exercise of the contempt jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly disposed of. ------