1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2009 IN W.P.NO. 3901 OF 2007 (In Suo Motu Contempt vs. Anand Limaye & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & F.M. REIS, JJ. JUNE 29, 2009. Heard Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the respondents. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have appeared and submitted an explanation. This Court had issued directions on 2.5.2009 to the Divisional Commissioners of Amravati and Nagpur, to take steps for ensuring that the orders of this Court are strictly complied with without default and delay on the concept of public accountability and fixation of responsibility of default in discharge of duty. We noticed that in spite of the expiry of two weeks from 16.5.2009, no action was taken and merely an application filed on 20.5.2009 for extending the time for complying with the orders of this Court. This Court accordingly found it appropriate to initiate action on 12.6.2009. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no intention to disobey the orders of this Court and in fact the two 2 respondents have tendered an unconditional apology in that regard. He further points out that as far as Amravati Division is concerned, the meeting was held by the Commissioner, Amravati, under his own authority on 6.6.2009 and 8.6.2009 and in fact in the meeting the Commissioner has taken certain decisions for ensuring proper compliance of the orders of this Court and for prosecuting the proceedings of the Court. Notably the Commissionerate has decided to appoint Nodal Officer who would ensure that the directions given by the Courts are followed in time. The learned G.P. points out that in fact such an appointment of Nodal Officer has been made and that Officer has started functioning. As far as the Nagpur Commissionerate is concerned, we find that a meeting was held on 15.6.2009, after this Court took cognizance on 12.6.2009. However, apparently the Commissioner had decided to hold the meeting on 11.6.2009. It may be noted that the Nagpur Commissionerate has also taken similar steps for ensuring compliance of the orders of this Court and for ensuring its speedy response to the Court proceedings. The Nodal Officer has also been appointed by the Nagpur Commissionerate and he has also started functioning. It appears that some important steps have been taken in response to the original order passed by this Court and we are sure that the Commissionerate would improve on the steps and further streamline the procedure according to 3 contingencies that may arise. However, we must note that we are not impressed with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that they received the order of this dated 2.5.2009 on 14.5.2009 and they applied for extension of time on 20.5.2009. What is untenable is the stand that they did not hold the meeting as directed as soon as they could because the application for extension was pending. We do not consider this to be a valid reason. When a party is directed to perform an act within the time specified by the Court, the party must do so within the time ordered by the Court or as soon as possible thereafter. A pending application for extension of time to perform cannot be a reason for not complying with orders. We are, however, satisfied that the two officers had no intention to disobey the orders of this Court. We, therefore, accept the unconditional apology tendered by them and accordingly discharge the notice issued by this Court. Order accordingly. The application for extension of time is disposed of in view of the order in suo motu Contempt Petition No. 92 of 2009. By consent, place Writ Petition No. 3901 of 2007 on 8th July 2009. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.