ORAL JUDGMENT R. M. LODHA, J. :- Heard. 2. Admit. Mr. M. M. Sudame, waives service for first respondent and Mr. B. R. Gavai, Government Pleader waives service for second respondent. By consent, the appeal is heard finally at this stage. 3. In our considered view the impugned order dated 16-6-2003 is unsustainable and there appears to be no justification for keeping the contempt petition pending. We shall indicate the reason for our conclusion a little later but before that we may observe that we wanted to know from the learned counsel appearing for petitioner about the maintainability of appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in R. N. Dey and others vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and others, (2000)4 Supreme Court Cases 400. The Supreme Court observed in R. N. Dey that where after initiation of proceedings for contempt, court passes an order without discharging the rule issued in the proceedings, such order would be decision and appeal would be maintainable against such order. 4. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, it would be seen that by order dated 23-4-2002 the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1458/2002 passed the following order :- "Therefore, we direct the respondent-State to decide the three revision application pending before it within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of this order and the enquiry Officer should conclude the enquiry within a period of three months." 5. Thus two directions were given by this Court :- i) The State Government was directed to decide three revision applications pending before it within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of that order and ii) the Enquiry Officer was directed to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months. 6. It is not disputed before us that three revision applications pending before the State Government were withdrawn. In the circumstances, question of non-compliance of first direction did not arise. As regards second direction, it is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer has completed the inquiry and report was submitted to the Divisional Joint Register on 22-5-2003. It is true that the Enquiry Officer did not conclude the inquiry within the time granted by this Court and there is definitely delay in concluding the inquiry. As regards second direction, it is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer has completed the inquiry and report was submitted to the Divisional Joint Register on 22-5-2003. It is true that the Enquiry Officer did not conclude the inquiry within the time granted by this Court and there is definitely delay in concluding the inquiry. However, the inquiry having already been concluded by the Enquiry Officer and the inquiry reported submitted on 2275-2003 and the fact that there is nothing on the record to indicate that Enquiry Officer deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court dated 23-4-2002 in not concluding the inquiry within three months, obviously the contempt petition was liable to be dismissed and there was no justification to keep the contempt petition pending, more so by directing the Divisional Joint Registrar to complete the procedure contemplated by section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. When there was no direction by the Division Bench in its order dated 23-4-2002 for completing the procedure contemplated by section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In the contempt jurisdiction controversy could not have been enlarged nor could the Contempt Court go into other questions save and except whether a case of civil or criminal contempt is made out or not. Contempt is not a lis between the parties but is a matter between the Court and the contemnor and the inquiry in the contempt jurisdiction has to be confined to that aspect. The direction, thus, given by the learned Judge in the impugned order dated 16-6-2003 to the Divisional Joint Registrar to complete the procedure under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and pass final order in the matter within six months was uncalled for. 7. We, accordingly, allow the contempt appeal and set aside the order dated 16-6-2003. We also observe that the Contempt Petition No. 113 of 2003 stands dismissed. However, respondent No. 1 is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy available in law in the light of the inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Divisional Joint Registrar. No costs. Appeal allowed.