S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- This Contempt Petition is by the original Petitioner in Writ Petition No.393/00. Although, the Order passed by this Court directs that the Writ Petition and the Contempt Petition be heard together, both sides agreed that the hearing of the Writ Petition be deferred and the Contempt Petition be taken up for disposal. We have proceeded to hear the parties only on the issue of contempt as urged in the Contempt Petition.

By consent, the Writ Petition is posted for hearing and final disposal after two weeks.

2. In the Contempt Petition as well, both sides agreed before us that the issue of maintainability raised by respondent no.2 be decided and an Order be made on the said preliminary objection raised by respondent no.2.

In the event, the Court holds that the Contempt Petition is maintainable, then the parties would address the Court on the issue of contempt.

3. We have proceeded on the above agreed basis.

4. The Contempt Petition sets out that the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.393/ 00, which was directed against the Notification dated 10.11.00 of the Government of Goa published in Official Gazette Series II No.32 Extraordinary No.2 of the said date.

5. Prior thereto, on 10.05.00, the Government of Goa by a notification, set up a Commission of inquiry for the purpose of making inquiry into the property of the late Count of Mayem. The Commission of inquiry was to be presided over by a retired Judge of this Court. The time limits were set up for submission of report and we are not concerned with the extensions granted to the said Commission.

6. It is alleged in the Contempt Petition that this Commission was set up by the Government which was led by one Mr. Sardinha. It was a Government which included rebel Congress M.L.As. and the Bharatiya Janata Party. It was a coalition Government.

The Commission was appointed as the matter was of public importance and the allegations were that Custodians of evacuee properties connived with some industrialists, bureaucrats, encroachers, politicians, etc. in order to plunder the estate of late Count of Mayem. The petition alleges that several attempts were made to thwart the proceedings before the Commission. The Commission was functioning and about 55 witnesses including the Contempt Petitioner were examined. Some more witnesses were being summoned and were to attend the proceedings on 13.11.00.

7. Prior thereto, on 24.10.00, second Respondent, Manohar Parrikar was sworn in as Chief Minister of Goa and he headed a B.J.P. Government. The first Respondent to the Contempt Petition is a MLA of the B.J.P. elected from Mayem Constituency. It is alleged that in order to end the proceedings before the Commission and ultimately preventing it from inquiring into the allegations that the impugned notification dated 10.11.00 came to be issued. The Commission was wound up and that is how the Writ Petition had to be filed.

8. We are not concerned with the allegations in the Writ Petition inasmuch as all that the petitioner alleges in this petition is that since the filing of the petition, he has been subjected to various threats of personal and bodily harm so also dire consequences. The allegation is that the petitioner was not permitted to prosecute the petition in the light of the threats. The threats were given by the supporters of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and at their instigation. In Para 8 and 9 of this Contempt Petition, these allegations are made.

It is further alleged that since the petitioner did not succumb to the threats, respondent nos. 1 and 2 issued him a notice for breach of privilege and contempt of the Goa Legislative Assembly for certain statements made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has received notice from the Under Secretary, Goa Legislature in that behalf.

9. The petitioner clarifies that at no stage and at no time he made any statement amounting to breach of privilege of the Goa Legislative Assembly. The Notices are nothing but threats