Appeal Against judgement and order in Writ Petition

In a double contempt before co-op court in an election petition by ex IAS [having held high posts like DG Shipping, State Ch Secretary etc] the co-op court permitted protracted time killing for almost 10 months and thereafter revoked its own order of no say. In writ petition filed after appellate court dismissed the revision the HC issued following order Bombay High Court 22 August, 2016. Oral Order :- Heard the Petitioner-in-person and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Though various prayers have been sought in this Petition, the Petitioner-in-person has restricted the Petition to prayer clause (a) coupled with prayer clause (g) of the Petition. 2. The Petitioner has prayed that the orders dated 15 March 2016 and 16 March 2016 passed by the Cooperative Court, Mumbai and the Co-operative Court, Mumbai be set aside and a reference be made to this Court and to take an appropriate action against the Respondents for contempt. 3. An election dispute has been filed by the Petitioner in the Co-operative Court, Mumbai in the year 2010. According to the Petitioner, the learned Co-operative Court had directed the Respondents to give inspection of certain documents within 10 days. Said inspection was not given as directed and the period expired on 19 October 2015. According to the Petitioner, he had made an application for proceeding against the Respondents for contempt on the ground that the inspection was not given so also an incorrect sickness certificate seeking leave of absence was filed. According to the Petitioner, the Application was posted for final orders on 15 March 2016 and earlier to posting the matter for final order, the Respondents had represented to the learned Co-operative Court that they do not wish to file reply however, on 15 March 2016 behind the back of the Petitioner, the Respondents moved the learned Cooperative Court Judge and got the order recalled. This order of recalling the final orders were challenged by way of Revision by the Petitioner and the Revision was dismissed by order dated 30 March 2016. 4. Both the Courts have given an opportunity to the Respondents before a final order proceeding against the Respondents for contempt, is passed. The contempt alleged is of the Cooperative Court and the Co-operative Court by following principles of natural justice have given an opportunity to the Respondents. The proceedings in contempt can result in penal consequences and therefore, are quasi criminal in nature. Therefore, the approach adopted by both the Courts in giving opportunity to the Respondents before passing the order cannot be stated to be illegal to warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 4. As far as the prejudice to the Petitioner is concerned, it is contended by the Petitioner that inspite of directions, inspection of the documents referred to in the cross-examination has not been given and therefore, the contempt proceedings had to be initiated. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that according to the Respondent No.4, these documents are not necessary and not giving inspection of these documents will be at the risk of the Respondent No.4 and in case, in future they are found to be relevant, the Court may draw an adverse inference. In view of this statement, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the Petitioner if the inspection of documents is not given. 5. Considering the fact that the election dispute is pending since the year 2010 and it is necessary that election disputes need to be disposed of within reasonable period, the learned Co-operative Court Judge will make an endeavour to dispose of the Election Dispute No.31 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31 December 2016. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 and the Petitioner-in-person states that they have been cooperate with the learned Co-operative Court Judge for early disposal of the election dispute within period stipulated and will not seek needless adjournments. This undertaking is accepted. 6. In these circumstances, no case is made out for interference in Writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off. In above order the Ld Judge has not considered the other contempt. Also a citation of SC advanced to the Ld Judge was not read by him where the SC has viewed that an order cannot be revoked by the same court except for the arithmetic or spelling corrections. No new considerations are permitted. Another judgement of the SC observing that "in a contempt the accused need not be heard at inquiry stage as he has an opportunity to be heard at the time of contempt proceedings" was also not read by him. In fact the Ld. Judge was grossly prejudiced against the party in person and since I was appearig in person he was repeatedly intimidating me of the screening committee. Do I have an opportunity to appeal or apply for revision against this order before devision bench of the same high court? If yes what that would be called? Thank you