The special remedy under Section 41E(4) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act prevails over the general remedy of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, unless extraordinary circumstances exist to permit recourse to the latter Act.

1. Heard Shri K.K. Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.N. Khanzode, learned counsel for respondent Nos.14 to 18.

2. By this petition, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the petitioner.

3. The petition rests on the ground that the respondent Nos.14 to 18 have committed a clear cut and willful breach of the order of injunction passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner on 2nd February, 1994 in Application No.9 of 1993. The breach of the order dated 2.2.1994, according to the petitioner, is evident from a particular act committed by the respondent Nos.14 to 18 on 25th May 2016. In paragraph 11 of the petition, it is stated that on or about 25th May, 2016, the respondent No.14 along with respondent Nos.15 to 18, the alleged plot holders, constructed two sheds by using bamboo mats and wooden poles on the land belonging to Ayyappa Samajam, a registered public trust. It is also alleged that these respondents have threatened to construct more shades and houses by other alleged plot holders and further threatened to start residing in this property. According to the petitioner, this particular act committed on or about 25th May 2016 by respondent Nos.14 to 18 amounts to willful breach of injunction order dated 2.2.1994 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and confirmed by the District Court as well as this Court.

4. So far as the allegations made against these respondents are concerned, following operative portions of the order dated 2.2.1994 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur are relevant and therefore reproduced thus:

“I, hereby order that the non-applicants nos.11 to 101 are hereby restrained by Rule of injunction from any way either entering upon or interfering or dealing with the property alleged to have been sold to them under the Sale-Deeds by non-applicants nos.1 and 2 out of the property of the Trust “Ayyappa Samajam Nagpur” bearing Khasra Survey No.247/1 having 6.97 acres involved in the present proceeding or using them either by themselves or by their agents or representatives etc. in their favour respectively.

2. They are further restrained from changing its use or having any sort of construction thereon.”

5. The respondent No.14 is non-applicant No.84, respondent No.17 is non-applicant No.17 and respondent No.18 is non-applicant No.41 in the application filed before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The respondent Nos.15 and 16 were not non-applicants therein. But, the petitioners claim that these respondents could also be fastened with the same knowledge and liability as the other respondents because both of them are claiming through the original non-applicant No.17, one Mr. Pachikutti and original non-applicant No.43 one Mr. Kanchanprasad respectively being father-in-law and father of respondent Nos.15 and 16 to the present contempt petition.

6. It would be clear from the above that grievance of the petitioner arises from the breach of injunction order dated 2.2.1994 passed under Section 41E of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act for brevity). Of course, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners is not restricted to just breach of the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and it extends to breach of the order passed by the District Court and this Court also.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason that there is no dispute about the fact that the order passed by the District Court does no more than confirmation of the injunction order dated 2.2.1994, passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and same is true about the order of the High Court passed on 20th February, 2007 in First Appeal No.430/2001 whereby the appeal preferred against the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Court, the date of which is not known because it is not filed on record of the case, has been dismissed. T