1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 82 of 2011. in Writ Petition no. 1997 of 1994. Shri Panjabrao Shamraoji Ghodeswar Vrs. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. And another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Rahul Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 Mr. A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. . CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 27 th September, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for alleged willful non-compliance of the directions issued by this court by the judgment dated 22.7.2010 in Writ Petition no. 1997/1994. It is the case of the petitioner that a division bench of this Court had, by the judgment dated 22.7.2010, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lower Division Clerk without disturbing the position of the respondent no.2 in that petition, within a period of 8 weeks. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not complied with the order within the period of 8 weeks. The respondent no.2 has filed an affidavit-in-reply and has stated therein that the judgment passed by this court on 22.7.2010 was challenged by the respondent no.2 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spl. Leave Petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to 2 issue notice to the respondent no. 1 as well as the petitioner, on 27.11.2010. The respondent no. 1 has also challenged the judgment dated 22.7.2010 in yet another Special leave petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay to the judgment dated 22.7.2010. In this background, it is the case of the respondents that the respondents had not committed contempt of court by flouting the directions issued by this court in the judgment dated 22.7.2010. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the judgment passed by this court on 22.7.2010 was not implemented within a period of 8 weeks as the respondents were intending to prefer the special leave petition against the same and the respondent no.1 had also filed it in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within a period of 8 weeks. From a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply and the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by this court in the judgment dated 22.7.2010 for appointing the petitioner on the post of lower division clerk within a period of 8 weeks. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to drop the contempt proceedings against the respondents. Hence, the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan