1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2007 Mahesh R. Patil ..Petitioner versus The Court of M. M. 26th Court Borivli & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Umesh S. Wale i/b. Mr. T. R. Patel for Petitioner. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 21st August, 2007 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate directing an enquiry under Rule 12 of the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules. 2. The Petitioner is a learned member of the Bar who gave an undertaking on 21st May 2007 that he would file a vakalatnama on the next date. Apparently he did not do so. Eventually he filed a vakalatnama on 7th August, 2007. This vakalatnama was accepted by the Court without raising 2 any objection. However, on an application filed by the other side, the Court has taken action calling upon the Petitioner to explain his conduct under Rule 12 of the “Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules)”. It is not clear whether the learned Magistrate is relying on either the old or the new Rules or Rules framed under the Contempt of Courts Act. It is not at all clear under what provision of law, the learned Magistrate has initiated action because the Bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules do not apply to his Court. Assuming that the learned Magistrate proposed to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act i.e. for a breach of undertaking, it appears from the record that there is no wilful breach of undertaking. It is well settled that only such acts as constitute a wilful disobedience of the Order of the Court or a breach of undertaking amount to Contempt of Court. It is further obvious from the record that the Petitioner filed the vakalatnama in the proceedings although late. The Court having accepted the vakalatnama without any objection ought not to have passed the impugned order. 3. In this view of the matter, the Petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed. Impugned Order is set aside. Rule is made absolute. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) 3