1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2008 Vijaykumar Motilal Hirakhanwala ....Petitioner. Versus Abdul Raful Shaikh, Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs, Panchakki, Aurangabad and another ....Respondents. Shri. S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. J.R. Shaikh, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. S.A.G. Qureshi, Adocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 10th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed, alleging that on 24.2.2005 there has been an adjudication by this Court in civil revision application No. 189/2004, holding that the property in question was not of the Wakf property. The Chief Executive Officer, thereafter filed civil application No. 4691/2001 for review of the judgment and order dated 24.2.2005. But the same was dismissed. It is alleged that in spite of the said adjudication, show cause notices were issued on 24.9.2007 and on 16th February 2008, as to why the said property should not be notified as Wakf property. The petitioner had replied to first notice on 15.10.2007 pointing out that the matter is concluded and hence, it is not open to issue the show cause notice. In spite of that the second show cause notice was issued. 2 2. This Court issued notice to the respondent on 5.5.2008. On 3rd of November 2009 the matter was adjourned to 10th of November 2009 with direction to respondent No. 1 and 2 to remain present in this Court. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are present in the Court, Shri. Qureshi, the learned counsel informs. Shri. Qureshi has tendered an affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No. 2, expressing his unconditional apology for the act of contempt, as alleged. Respondent No. 2 has stated that he was not incharge of the office when the notices were issued. After resuming the charge, he has gone through the documents produced by the petitioner and has reached to the conclusion to drop the proceedings as being hit by the doctrine of res judicata. He has therefore passed an order, withdrawing the two show cause notices issued in inquiry No. 5618/7 dated 24.9.2007 as well as 16.2.2008 and the matter is closed. 3. In view of the aforesaid statement filed in affidavit, I do not think that this contempt proceeding is required to be pursued further and the same is therefore dropped. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp116.08