1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.46 OF 2009 M/s. Atlas Transport Company ...Petitioner. v. Mr. B.P.Pande and Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar ,adv. For the Petitioner. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 25, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was allotted certain work of transportation of food material for four districts. Some disputes arose and on a complaint made by the competitor of the petitioner, the Government of Maharashtra had passed certain order blacklisting the present petitioner in respect of the Government Contracts of transportation of the Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department. Cross writ petitions were filed by both the parties. In the said Writ Petition nos.2394 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.2414 of 2008, Division Bench of this Court had passed an order dated 31st July, 2008 directing the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department to complete the enquiry proceedings in respect of blacklisting of the petitioner in respect of two districts, i.e., Jalgaon and Buldhana. In respect of other districts, the order debarring the petitioner 2 from being considered was set aside. According to the petitioner, in spite of that the respondent nos.1 and 2, who were the Principal Secretary and the Hon'ble Minister respectively for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Department had cancelled contracts already given to the petitioner in respect of district from which order debarring was set aside. It is contended that it amounted to contempt of the Court and action be taken. 2 Respondent No.1 Mr. Bhupati Prasad Pandey has filed his affidavit-in-reply. Respondent no.2 Mr. Ramesh Bang the then Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department has also filed his affidavit-in-reply. They have pointed out that as per the directions given by the Court the then Principal Secretary had passed a detailed reasoned order on 7.10.2008 after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to all the concerned, including the present petitioner, in the said enquiry proceedings held in the complaint against the petitioner. As per the affidavit of Mr. Ramesh Bang, the then Hon'ble Minister, in view of the equiry report an assurance was given on the floor of the Maharashtra Legislative Council and pursuant to that assurance, orders were passed terminating contract granted to the petitioner in respect of other districts also. According to them, they had no intention nor they 3 have committed any contempt of the Court. 3 Admittedly, in the order passed by the then Principal Secretary after holding the enquiry, the present petitioner was blacklisted and was debarred from participating in tendering process for the purpose of granting transport contracts in the Department of Food and Civil Supply & Consumer Protection Department for certain period. In view of these circumstances, if matter was considered by the Maharashtra Legislative Council and if for the purpose of transparency in the administration and for maintaining high standard and probity in the conduct of the government business, particularly in respect of the contracts, the Government felt it necessary to terminate the contract, it can not be said that it amounted to contempt of the Court, merely because the contract, which was cancelled, was same about which earlier blacklisting order was set aside to that extent. 4 In my opinion, in the given circumstances, it will not be appropriate for this Court to take any action for the contempt of the Court. If because of termination of contract, the petitioner has suffered any loss or damages, he may have remedy elsewhere and may seek compensation by filing civil suit. Mr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere filing of the suit for compensation 4 may not be sufficient remedy. I am unable to agree with him. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)