1 23.conpw-l-83-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi CONTEMPT PETITION (L) NO. 83 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 517 OF 2011. Brajeshwari @ Vrajeshwari @ Meera W/o. Pyarelalsingh. ..Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Omprakash Pandey, for Petitioner. Mrs. Madhubala Kajale, AGP, for Respondents. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : By this Contempt Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that the Respondents have willfully breached the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court dated 19th April 2011. The said order reads as follows :- “1. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6 states that if the Petitioner makes an application within a period of one week from today to the respondent no.5, the respondent no.5 shall consider that application in accordance with law and make an order thereon in accordance with law and communicate it to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of one week from the date on which the Petitioner makes the application. Statement accepted. In view of this statement Petition permitted to be withdrawn. All contentions of both sides are kept open.” 2. Admittedly, though the original Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Additional Collector has not passed the order within a period of one week from the date of the order, an order has been passed on 29th 2 23.conpw-l-83-11 July 2011. Therefore, it is not that the Respondents have not passed any orders as per the directions of this Court till date. However, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner contends that by the said order, it was the Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Additional Collector (Enc/Removal), who was directed to pass the order, but it is the Deputy District Collector who has passed the order. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents tenders an unconditional apology on behalf of the Respondents for not passing the order within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the Application from the Petitioner as directed by the order dated 19th April 2011 and instead passing the order on 29th July 2011. The apology of Respondents is accepted. 4. As regards the argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that the Deputy Collector ought not to have passed the order and it is the Additional Collector who ought to have passed the order the Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents has informed the Court that by Government Gazette dated 25th October 2001, the Additional Collector is empowered to delegate his duties to the Deputy District Collector. I am further informed that the said order dated 29th July 2011 is already challenged by the Petitioner inter alia on the ground that the order was passed without any authority by the Deputy District Collector. In view thereof, no opinion is expressed by this Court as regards the said issue and the same shall be determined in the appropriate proceedings already filed by the Petitioner. The Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]