1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPCP) NO.13 & 14 OF 2010. IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.3 OF 2010 (DECIDED). SANTOSH KUMAR S/O BHANUDAS DHAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Petitioner in person. Shri V. A. Thakre, APP for State Respondents. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 23rd DECEMBER 2010. 1. Heard party in person at length. 2. The petitioner is labouring under the impression that the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1833 of 1994 was wrong, being based on representations made by the Government Pleaders in their affidavits. At no point of time, the petitioner has moved the Court at reasonable time for recalling the order passed by this Court on 19-9-2005 in Writ Petition NO.1833 of 1994. 3. Repeated efforts of the petitioner to contend that the affidavits filed in the said petition, being inapplicable to the case, amount to 2 contempt has to be inferred from his oral submission, since the averments in the contempt petition being drafted by party in person are un- intelligible. 4. The effort made through these two applications in spirit is to revive the contempt petition No.3/2010. 5. In order to scrutinize the genuineness of the grievance, we have gone through various papers placed on record and tendered for our perusal. 6. Prima facie, we are of the view that the averments contained in paragraph no.2 of the Criminal Application No.13/2010 in decided Contempt Petition No.3 of 2010 would per se constitute criminal contempt. However, as we see the petitioner is a misguided sole and really is not in a position to understand his case, we do not propose to take serious view of the matter. 7. We are, however, satisfied that both these applications are misconceived and are hereby rejected. Judge Judge //mule//