( 1 ) THIS is an application for restoration of contempt Petition No. 29 of 2004 dismissed by this Court by an order dated 29-6-2004.

( 2 ) THE applicant/petitioner had filed the said contempt petition complaining of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 12-6-2003. When the contempt petition came up for hearing on 29-6-2004, none appeared for the petitioner. After considering the material on record and hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court held that there was no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents/contemners. The Court also observed that in view of the explanation, which has come forward, namely that the order has been complied with, it is not necessary to take any action. The petition was, therefore disposed of.

( 3 ) BY the present application, the applicant contends that his matter was listed at serial No. 6 for admission. The counsel for the applicant was required to appear at the same time in the matters listed before the Division Bench and, therefore, could not attend the Court. He also stated that he was under the impression that the respondents would seek further time to file submissions and, therefore, could not attend the proceeding resulting in its dismissal.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petition was dismissed after considering the fact that the order was duly complied with, there is no question of restoration of the petition. Further, he drew my attention to the decision of this Court in Panjabrao Sadashivrao Wankhede vs. Rajeev agrawal, Secretary, Ministry of Co-operation, Mumbai, reported in 2004 (2) mh. L. J. 1047, wherein this Court held that once the contempt proceedings were dropped for any reason whatsoever, they could not be restored. While so holding, this Court had considered the entire scheme of the provisions of the Contempt of courts Act as also the rules framed by the High Court thereunder. In that case, the order, which was sought to be set aside, read as under :"none for the petitioner, AGP for respondent-State. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Contempt proceedings are dropped. Petition dismissed. "in this context, the Court observed that since section 12 of the Contempt of courts Act does not make any difference between the punishment for civil contempt and punishment for criminal contempt, the punishment being by way of incarceration, the restoration of a petition would amount to a type of double jeopardy. The Court also considered the provisions of relevant section 256 of the code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the procedure of dealing with summons cases and the principle of outrefois acquit. The Court, therefore, held that the miscellaneous Civil Application for restoration is not tenable and was, therefore, dismissed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in Zynab Hydari vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004 (3) Mh. L. J. 275, this Court had held that if a contempt petition is dismissed in default, the Court has the power to set aside the order and restore the petition for being heard on merits. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the decision of the Court in Zynab Hydari vs. State of Maharashtra and others empowered the Court to restore the contempt petition, the Court may do so. It may be seen that the Court rendered the decision in Zynab Hydari vs. State of Maharashtra and others on 18-3-2004. The decision in Panjabrao Sadashiorao Wankhede vs. Rajeev Agrawal, secretary, Ministry of Co-operation, Mumbai was rendered on 10-1-2003. It has to be presumed that all the previous decisions of the Court are available for being placed before the successive Benches. The doctrine of precedence implies that a decision rendered is binding on a Bench deciding the same question subsequently. If the Bench has to take a different view, it is required to record its reasons for doing so and refer the matter to a Larger

Click Here to Read the rest of this document