Contempt power is not attracted in case of disobedience of administrative orders
It cannot be disputed that the Apex Court has held
that the Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed under
Section 5 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is a ‘Court’ for
:the purposes of the Contempt of Courts Act. The question is
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 41A of the
Bombay Public Trusts Act, whether the Charity
Commissioner acts as a ‘Court’ and exercises judicial or
quasi judicial power. This Court has already taken a view in
the case of Damodar v. Dy. Charity Commissioner, reported
in 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 431, and Vanmala v. Dy. Charity
Commissioner, reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 594, that the
power conferred by Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts
Act is purely an administrative power and it is neither a
judicial or quasi judicial power. Hence, in such proceedings,
the Charity Commissioner does not act as a ‘Court’ within
the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act. The provision of
Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act is not attracted.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.227 OF 2012
1. Budhasao Sitaramsao Dhenge,
Versus
1. V.G. Katgaye,
citation;2013(2) MH L J 220
