1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 211 OF 2008 Ramdas Kashinath Gurav. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. L.S. Gurav, the Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural), Thane & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Ajit Kenjale for the Petitioner. Mr. A.J. Patel, AGP for Respondent 3. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 5th APRIL 2010. P.C. :- The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent – Contemnor has failed to abide by the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7101 of 2006 dated 29th January 2007. 2. This Court, in the Writ Petition directed that the pending Appeal should be disposed off within a period of three months from the date of furnishing copy of the order of the Division Bench to the Contemnor - Second Respondent to the Writ Petition. 3. The grievance is that despite the order being communicated, the Appeal was not disposed off within the said period and in any event no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner. 2 4. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents to this Contempt Petition by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural), Thane, State of Maharashtra. He has stated that the copy of the order passed by this Court was received on 28th February 2007. Respondent No.2 decided the Petitioner’s Appeal within a period of three months and communicated the order by the communication dated 17th May 2007, copy of which is annexed as annexure ‘M’ to this Petition. 5. The first grievance that the order was not complied with in so far as the time schedule is concerned, therefore, does not survive. 6. As far as the second grievance that the order decides the Appeal ex-parte and without affording any opportunity to the Petitioner of being heard, is concerned, the Division Bench order does not specifically direct that the Petitioner should be heard. In any event, whether hearing is given or not and whether that could vitiate the order is something which is a distinct matter. This will have to be decided with reference to the relevant rules and whether any obligation is cast thereunder to grant a personal hearing. This is not a matter of contempt. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the course adopted by the Second Respondent, his remedy is not to initiate contempt proceedings but to file substantive application challenging the order dated 17th May 2007. In that 3 application/challenge he can raise all pleas including that the order is vitiated for compliance with principles of natural justice. The Petitioner can still resort to these proceedings. The Contempt Petition is not his remedy. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. Needless to further clarify that if there are any orders passed after 17th May 2007, the Petitioner is at liberty to challenge even that order and all contentions in that behalf are kept open. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)