SHIVAJI EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this contempt appeal, the appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No.120 of 2006.

(2.) Few facts giving rise to the contempt appeal are stated thus :

(3.) Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding that the appellant had committed a contempt of the order dated 09/09/2002 in Writ Petition No.3246 of 2002, filed by Archana. It is submitted that the prayer clause in the contempt petition, would clearly show that by filing the contempt petition, Archana has sought action against the management for gross violation of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.3770 of 2001 and 3787 of 2001. It is submitted that Archana, the petitioner in the contempt petition had filed Writ Petition No.3246 of 2002 and as stated herein above Jyoti Thakre and Atul Wankhede had filed Writ Petition Nos.3770 of 2001 and 3787 of 2001 respectively of which a mention is made in the prayer clause in the contempt petition. It is submitted that on the basis of the orders passed in the writ petitions filed by Jyoti Thakre and Atul Wankhede, the appellant could not have been punished. It is further stated that neither is a reference made in the prayer clause in the contempt petition to Writ Petition No.3246 of 2002 filed by Archana nor are the orders passed in Writ Petition No.3246 of 2002 mentioned in the contempt petition or are annexed thereto, to point out that the said orders are violated. It is stated that even assuming that in the contempt petition Archana had sought action against the appellant for wilful disobedience of the order passed in her writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.3246 of 2002, still the learned Single Judge could not have held that the appellant had wilfully flouted or disobeyed the directions of this court in the said writ petition. It is stated that while issuing Rule in the writ petition filed by Archana, this court observed that at that stage there was no question of granting interim relief as the management had itself stayed the order of termination of Archana dated 27/11/2002. It is stated that as soon as the management lifted the stay to the order of termination dated 27/11/2001, Archana could have availed the appropriate remedy, but she could not have filed the contempt petition for an action against the appellant for wilful disobedience of the directions in the said order. It is stated that this court had not stayed the order of termination of Archana while issuing Rule and had observed that there was no question of staying the order of termination at that stage. It is stated that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant had wilfully and purposefully tried to circumvent the effect of the order in the writ petition filed by Archana.