1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition No.73 of 2010 In Criminal Contempt Petition No.6 of 2008 [Shri Moses Suryaprakash Palparti and others v. Rev. P.M. Timothy, Presbyter-In-Charge AHM (1840) Church and another] Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.H. Laddhad, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 25 th October, 2010 1. This contempt petition complains of breach of the undertaking given by the respondents before this Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No.6 of 2008. The breach complained is that the communication dated 1-5-2008 issued by the respondents holding that the petitioners shall not be considered as Members in Good Standing and their names shall not appear on the Electoral Roll, has not been withdrawn. 2. Shri Laddhad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, does not dispute that the names of the petitioners are included in the voters’ list prepared by the Council. He, however, submits that the communication dated 1-5-2008 has not been withdrawn. 2 3. Shri Ghate, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the fact that the names of the petitioners are included in the voters’ list, itself indicates that the petitioners have been treated as Members in Good Standing and hence the communication dated 1-5-2008 has not been acted upon in view of the undertaking. In view of this, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the complaint in the instant contempt petition does not arise. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioners. The same is reproduced below : “ It is further submitted that, the respondent no.1 during the Sunday worship on 30 th May 2010 had felicitated the members of Church namely Mr. Sunil Singh, Mr. Franklin Joseph, Mr. Praddep Jacob and Mr. Tony Samuel, who were elected as Board Members, Treasurer respectively by calling those persons to the Alter. That the respondent no.1 was aware that the petitioner no.2 have also been elected as the Vice President of Y.M.C.A. Nagpur in the same election, yet the respondent no.1 did not either announce the name of petitioner no.2 even though he was present which goes on to prove that even after filing affidavit, the respondent no.1 does not treat the petitioner no.2 as member in good standing. The petitioner had written letter to the respondent no.1 on dated 3.6.2010. Copy of the letter dated 3.6.2010 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 1.” 3 5. The complaint is that the petitioners have not been treated on part with the other Members, who are being considered as Members in Good Standing, as alleged in the aforesaid paragraph. Apparently, the communication dated 1-5-2008 stands withdrawn and the petitioners have been treated as Members in Good Standing. Their names are also included in the voters’ list. 6. Thus, there is no question of contempt, muchless the question of breach of the undertaking given by the respondents to this Court. 7. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl