 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Contempt Petition No. 17 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 1265/2008 (Decided) (Maharashtra Rajya Anudanit Prathamik/Madhyamik Ashram Shala Karmachari Santhatana Vs. Shri P.S. Meena and others.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. K.R. Lambat, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Pendse, Adv. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 16 th MARCH, 2009 By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful and deliberate non-compliance of the direction issued by the division bench of this Court by the order dated 18th of June, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1265 of 2008 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the same within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. According to the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner was not decided till the filing of the contempt petition on 20/1/2009.  On issuance of notice before admission on 28th of January, 2009, the respondents appeared in the matter and have filed affidavit in reply on 13/3/2009. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that the order passed by the division bench on 18th of June, 2008 was communicated to the respondents sometimes in the midst of July, 2008. Immediately thereafter, the respondents initiated an action in the matter and decided the representation filed by the petitioner, on 6/10/2008. The order and the decision on the representation was also communicated to the petitioner. Shri J.P. Pendse, the learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, states that there is some delay in deciding the representation, but the delay in deciding the representation is bona fide and it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the division bench of this Court on 18th of June, 2008. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order dated 6/10/2008 is not received by the petitioner, it appears  from the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the copy of the order was communicated to the petitioner on 6/10/2008. In any case, the petitioner is aware of the decision on the representation on 13/3/2009 when a copy of the affidavit-in-reply along with the decision dated 6/10/2008 was supplied to the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, it appears that there is some delay in deciding the representation, but it appears from the statements of facts in the affidavit-in-reply that the delay is not deliberate or willful, with a view to flout or disobey the order passed by this Court on 18th of June, 2008. In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondents are hereby dropped. Notice dated 28th of January, 2009 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE RMP