1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.26 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2284 OF 2009 Om Sidh Trading, PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra and others. RESPONDENTS Mr.G.K.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned AGP for respondent no.1 to 4 Mr.Pradeep Deshmukh, h/f. Mr.Darshan Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent no.5 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 06/05/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present contempt petition is filed by the petitioner, as according to the petitioner, the respondent no.5 has violated the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2284/2009, vide order dated 14/08/2009, wherein, it is observed by the Division Bench of this Court that,”Shri.K.J.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 states on instructions from the respondent no.5 that the allotment of plots to the members of the respondent no.6, in the draw held on 27/03/2009, has been cancelled 2 and no plots would be allotted pursuant to the draw held on 27/03/2009. It is stated that a fresh process for allotment of the plots in accordance with the law would be undertaken by the respondent- market committee. The petition was disposed of with leave to withdraw the petition.” 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that inspite of this statement made before the Court, which is accepted by the Division Bench of this Court as an undertaking, without following due procedure, the plots were auctioned and were allotted to the members. 3. In response to the notice issued to the respondents, respondent no.5 appeared in this contempt petition and filed his affidavit in reply. In his affidavit in reply, in para no.5 it is stated that, “the deponent submits that, as a part of fresh process so also to give effect to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in various litigations in the true sense a meeting of Board of Directors was called on 24/08/2009 to take decision in respect of allotment of plots and in the said meeting the decision to allot the plots to the members of respondent no.6 has been taken. The copy of the resolution passed in the meeting dated 24/08/2009 is annexed herewith and marked Exh.R-1. It is clear from the above resolution that, traders desirous to shift their business at Jadhavwadi, Aurangabad would be accommodated in due course in second phase and pursuance to the decision taken in the meeting dated 24/08/2009, the letter dated 03/12/2009 came to be issued by the Secretary, APMC, Aurangabad, which is within fore corners of 3 Law.” Thus there is no contempt committed by respondent no.5 as alleged in the petition. 4. Alongwith the affidavit in reply, the 5th respondent has produced the copy of the minutes of the meeting as well as the resolution passed in the said meeting. As per the statement made across the bar by the counsel appearing for the APMC in Writ Petition No.2284/2009, which was disposed of on 14/08/2009, it appears that due process was followed for allotment of plots to the members of the APMC. Whether the process which is followed by the 5th respondent is proper or not, it can not be decided in this contempt petition. But in this contempt petition, the limited scope to be exercised by this Court is whether as per the assurance given, due procedure was followed or not and prima facie it appears that the procedure was followed by the 5th respondent. 5. In the premise, on the face of it, it did not appear that the 5th respondent has committed the contempt of court by dis-obeying the order passed in Writ Petition No.2284/2009, dated 14/08/2009. In view of this, contempt petition is devoid of any merit, and stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Notices issued against the respondents stand discharged. (A.V.POTDAR) JUDGE khs/MAY 2010/cp26-10