1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.389 OF 2008 Umesh Shrikant Shetye ..Petitioner V/s. Rajan Ramakrushana Shetye ..Respondent Mr.Rakesh Bhatkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner None for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 16TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Contempt Petition alleges that the Respondent is guilty of Criminal contempt in terms of Clause 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. 2. The Petitioner had filed Writ Petition Nos.6294 of 2008, 6300 of 2008 and 6311 of 2008 presumably for transfer of Application pending before the Collector under the Maharashtra Local Authority Members 2 Disqualification Act. These Petitions came to be disposed of by Judgment dated 8th September, 2008 which reads as under :- All these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the Divisional Officer, Konkan Division shall consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the law and policy of the State and pass appropriate order within four weeks from today. The proceedings before the Collector to continue. However if the final order is passed, the same order be not given effect for a period of four weeks. All these writ petitions are therefore disposed of. 3. The Respondent possibly got news item published in several News Papers to the effect that the Petitioner's Writ Petitions were dismissed and that the hearing of disqualification proceedings were to continue before the Collector. This, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, amounts to Criminal contempt as defined in Clause 2(c) (ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In support of his contention he relied on the Judgment of this Court in the matter of District & Sessions Judge, Aurangabad Versus 3 Deelip Balaram Bedekar & another, reported in 2002 Bom.C.R.(Cri)209. In that case, the Contemner was held guilty of making allegations against the Court as defined in Clause 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act. In that case the contemner had filed a private Criminal complaint in which he gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate making allegations against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and got his statement published in the News Paper. How this Judgment would be applicable to the present Court is not at all clear. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to point out as to how publication of the news item at the instance of the Respondent could cause prejudice to or interfere in or adversely affect the proceedings. 4. Therefore, there is absolutely no warrant to take cognizance of the Criminal contempt alleged by the Petitioner. Contempt 4 Petition is devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)