FARAD CONTINUTION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Contempt Petition no. l92 of 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge’s Order Memorandum of Coram appearence,Court’s Orders & Directors and Registrar’s Order --------------------------------------------------- Mr.Nitin P Deshpande for petitioner Mr.Birendra Sraf with Durgesh Khanapurkar for M/s Prakash & Co for respondents CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 7.3.2006 DATED 7.3.2006 DATED 7.3.2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings. The grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have willfully breached the order of injunction passed by this court on 23.3.2005 is unacceptable. Although it is not possible to fully accept the stand taken by the respondents that the communication received by the respondents in the form of telegram,it was not possible to discern as to whether the High Court has stayed the inquiry pending against the petitioner. For, the telegram clearly mentions writ petition number and reads as follows: " The High Court restraining the inquiry against Shri Sainath M Pradhan" . On receipt of the said telegram the respondents were expected to go slow in the matter of inquiry and ascertain that there was no injunction operating against them, if they were not very clear about the contents of the telegram. That explanation does not appeal to me. However, the facts stated on affidavit by the respondents that telegram was received on 23.3.2005 at around 5.30 p.m.in para (r) of the reply filed and further by the time telegram was received the departmental inquiry was already completed, as mentioned in para (s) of the reply affidavit.Both these facts have remained unchallenged. From the zerox copy of the telegram produced at page 44 Annexure I to the affidavit of Rajesh Himatlal it is seen that the receipt time by the local post office is noted as l4.54 hours. It is obvious that it is only thereafter the telegram must have been delivered to the respondents In the circumstances there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement made on affidavit which has remained uncontroverted that the telegram was received at 5.30 p.m. and by which time inquiry was completed. Viewed in this perspective this is not a case for initiating contempt cation against the respondents as it is not willful disobedience of the order of this court. Petition is disposed of. All questions on merits of the contentions arising in the writ petition are left open to be decided at the final hearing of the petition.