1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.257 OF 2008 Laxmibai w/o.Uttam Suratkar, and others PETITIONERS VERSUS Managing Director, and others RESPONDENTS Mr.A.S.Barlota, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.2 and 3 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 12/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present petition, the petitioners have filed contempt petition against respondent no.2 and 3, who are the revenue authorities as they are not complying the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, who has issued the recovery certificate about the dues to be recovered from the first respondent in favour of all the petitioners. 2. In this petition, the revenue officers appeared after notice and filed their affidavit in reply. Alongwith their affidavit in reply, they have also annexed the letter addressed by the Tahsildar to the 2 District Collector dated 13/09/2004, expressing their dis-ability to execute or recover the amount under the recovery certificate for the grounds mentioned in para no.6,7 and 8 as even though the recovery certificate was sent for recovery as per the procedure to be followed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, it appears that the Maharashtra Co-operative Bank has filed the dispute against first respondent in the Co-operative Court to whom with the property of first respondent was mortgaged. Because of the stay is in force in the said dispute granted by the Co-operative Court, further proceedings to recover the amount under the recovery certificate can not be implemented. It is further made clear in para no.7 of the said affidavit that for the recovery of amount under the recovery certificate, the steps were taken, but the auction warrant in respect of the immovable property of first respondent was published by the Revenue Officer, but the auction can not be completed because of certain orders which were running and in force against the first respondent. The main allegation against respondent no.2 and 3 is that, intentionally and deliberately they are not executing or recovering the amount under the recovery certificate, for which it can not be said that revenue officers are intentionally and deliberately dis-obeyed the order to recover the amount under the recovery certificate. Apart from it, when the petition today came up for final hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that again the bank has moved the Division Bench of this Court for the property mortgaged with them and they are not in possession of that secured property. Considering this aspect, it can not be said that respondent 3 no.2 and 3 are intentionally and deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. 3. In the premise, contempt petition sans any merit, and stands dismissed. Notice against the respondents discharged. However, it is made clear that because of this order, the petitioners are not precluded to approach the proper forum for appropriate remedy. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cp257-08