1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.294 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4517 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders None present for petitioner. Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned AGP for respondent State. Mr.G.D.Kale, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/04/2010 On 26/03/2010, the petition was adjourned today at the request of counsel for petitioner. Today, when the petitioner is called out at 11.40 a.m., he didn’t appear. The contempt as alleged by the petitioner is the violation of order dated 16/07/2009, passed in writ petition no. 4517/2009. In para no.2 of the said order, it is observed that, “The only grievance raised in the petition is that though the matter has been remanded to the respondent no.3, by 2 respondent no.2, regarding registration of the petitioner, so also, respondent no.4, the respondent no.3 has refused to decide the matter on remand.” In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, yesterday, respondent no.3 was personally present in the Court and makes the statement that the matter will be decided within the period of 1 month from today. The record shows that after this contempt petition appeared before this Court, notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the said notices, affidavit in reply was filed by the Assistant Register, Co- operative Societies, (Dairy) Jalna, Tal. And Dist. Jalna, by name Ashok Jagannath. On perusal of contents of affidavit in reply, it reveals that the delay in passing the order is because of the adjournments sought by the parties, after the matter appeared before the respondent. The affidavit further discloses that as within the stipulated period, as assured, the order was not passed, extension was sought by the respondents from this Court to pass the order and during the 3 extended time, the order was passed. The respondent, in his affidavit in reply, has explained the delay caused in passing the order and in para no.16 of the said affidavit in reply, it is mentioned that the delay is not intentional, but caused due to process of hearing, and tendered un-conditional apology for the delay caused in passing the order. This fact shows that the delay in passing the order is not intentional and willful. In view of this, the apology tendered by the respondent is accepted. The contempt petition stands disposed of. The notices to the respondents stand discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cp294-09