1201cp225.10.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 225 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5096 OF 2009 (D) Smt. Meera Manohar Vyaghra and 8 others :: PETITIONERS -: Versus :- Mr. Pravin Darade, The Collector, Nagpur and another. :: RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... Shri R. M. Pande, Advocate H/f Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A. M. Deshpande, A. G.P. for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. ............................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12TH JANUARY, 2011. P. C. : 1. The contempt petition is complained about willful disobedience/breach of the order dated 26/3/2010 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 5096 of 2009. It is alleged in para 3 of the contempt petition that the respondent No. 1, without granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, renewed FL-III license in favour of respondent No. 2 on 30/3/2010 and this is a colourable exercise of power and there is smell of foul play on the part of respondent No. 1. The further allegation is made that respondent No. 2 is instrumental in getting FL-III license renewed from respondent No. 3, in violation of the aforesaid order. 2. Perusal of order dated 26/3/2010 passed in writ petition No. 5096 of 2009 shows that there is no order passed by this Court restraining respondent No. 1 from 1201cp225.10.odt 2/2 renewing FL-III license. The only direction is that the petitioners be given one more opportunity to demonstrate that the temple is managed by the registered public Trust and the petitioners can make appropriate application for the said purpose to respondent No. 3- Collector, who shall thereafter give necessary opportunity to respondent No. 4 and all concerned and decide the issue, in accordance with law. 3. The stand of respondent No. 1 in the affidavit is that the petitioner gave application in the month of April and the same has been scrutinized by respondent No. 1 from the office of the Charity Commissioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not submitted the details asked for in order to verify the status of the petitioner and to give him necessary opportunity as directed by this Court. 4. It is not the complaint made in the petition that no steps are being taken up for deciding the application of the petitioner. The complaint made by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 should not have renewed FL-III license is not in tune with the directions given by this Court. The petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE wwl