1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.61 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1626 OF 2007 Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd. ... PETITIONER VERSUS Kailash Khanderao Thombare & others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner ..... Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Dated : 16th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner had filed Criminal Application No.1626/2007, challenging the order of issuance of notice dated 21.3.2007 by learned District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar, thereby issuing show-cause-notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why action of disobeying the orders passed by the said Forum should not be taken against the petitioner. However, the said Criminal Application came to be dismissed by this Court on 25.7.2007. But while 2 dismissing the said petition, it was observed by this Court that the learned District Consumer Forum shall not be influenced by the observations made in the said order when it considers the mater on merits after the petitioner shows cause to the notice issued by the learned Forum. 3. Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that, in pursuance of the said show-cause-notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar and filed its say on 3.9.2007 and same was reflected in the roznama dated 3.9.2007. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time and ultimately it was posted on 15.10.2007 for passing the orders. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that although the said mater was fixed on15.10.2007, the order came to be passed therebefore i.e. on 10.10.2007 by the learned District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar and further the reply filed by the petitioner dated 3.9.2007 was not considered while passing the said order. 4. As reflected in the roznama Exhibit J to the present compilation, true it is that the petitioner herein had filed reply on 3.9.2007, in pursuance of the show-cause-notice and thereafter the said matter was adjourned for 2/3 dates as reflected in the said roznama of District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar and was posted on 15.10.2007 for passing orders, however, apparently Exhibit I i.e. order passed by District Consumer Forum discloses that the said order came to be passed on 10.10.2007 i.e. before 15.10.2007 i.e. the date which was fixed for passing the orders. However, that cannot be the ground in the present Contempt Petition and at the most it may be the 3 ground for the petitioner while challenging the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar before the appropriate forum. 5. Apart from that, on perusal of the contents of the order dated 10.10.2007 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar, it appears that the said forum has observed that the petitioner herein did not appear before the said forum but only filed written explanation/ say and thereafter concluded that the petitioner has committed contempt of the said forum. Hence it is apparent that the reply dated 3.9.2007 filed by the petitioner was before the learned Consumer Forum while passing the order dated 15.10.2007 and considering that, the order dated 15.10.2007 came to be passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar. In view of the facts of the matter, firstly there were no specific directions while passing the order dated 25.7.2007 by this Court in Criminal Application No.1626/2007 since the said Criminal Application was rejected vide order passed on 25.7.2007 and secondly, in view of the foregoing discussion, there is no question of alleged contempt in respect of the observations made in the said order. 6. Hence, present Contempt Petition bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cp61.08