1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.541 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.86 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2009 Shri Ankush S. Wani ...Petitioner. v. Shivaji A. Naik, President, Kolhapur Jillah Vimukta Jati, Bhatkya Jamati Vikas Mandal and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. A.M.Khandekar i/by M.S.Topkar, advs. For the Petitioner. Mr. Avinash R. Belge i/by Kirankumar Phakade ,advs. For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.I.I.Patel, AGP for the R.No.4. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 27, 2011. P.C. 1 Petitioner, who was in employment of the respondents as a teacher, was removed from the service. He preferred Appeal No.35 of 1995 before the School Tribunal. That appeal was allowed by the order dated 2.4.1998 and he was directed to be reinstated with the back wages. As the said order was not complied, the present petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001 before the School Tribunal for the execution of that order and for punishing the respondents. That Contempt Petition was also allowed and the management was convicted 2 and sentenced. That order was challenged by the management before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009. While admitting writ petition this Court by the order dated 9th December, 2009 stayed the judgment and the order of the School Tribunal subject to the present petitioner being reinstated and depositing back wages within four weeks. It was clarified that if both these conditions were not satisfied, stay would automatically stand vacated without any further order of the Court. Thus, consequences of not fulfilling these two conditions were very clearly spelt out in the said order. Admittedly, said conditions were not fulfilled and as a result stay to the operation of the judgment and order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the School Tribunal stood automatically vacated. As a result, order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the School Tribunal is very much in force in spite of pendency of the writ petition challenging that order. 2 Petitioner has filed this contempt petition contending that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court by not complying the said order as well as the order dated 2.4.1998 passed by the School Tribunal. 3 In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that because of non-compliance of the order passed by the School Tribunal in Appeal 3 No.35 of 1995, petitioner had already filed Contempt Petition No.3 of 2001 and in that contempt petition, the School Tribunal had convicted and sentenced the management for non-compliance of the said order. The petitioner can not file second contempt petition before this Court on the same ground and for same purpose. Respondents can not be convicted and sentenced for the same contempt twice. As far as the non- compliance of the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by this Court in the writ petition is concerned, consequences of non-compliance are clearly spelt out in the said order and no further consequences can be there. In my opinion, there is no substance in the present contempt petition. 4 In the result, contempt petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that this will not come in a way of execution of the orders of the School Tribunal either in the appeal or in the contempt petition. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)