1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.139 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6894 OF 2008 Shaikh Sikandar Shaikh Gulab Age : 38 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Lukha Mhasla, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court, Aurangabad). 2. Pankaj Kumar The District Collector, Collector Office, Tq. & Dist. Beed. RESPONDENTS .... Mr. S. G. Magre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.D. V. Tele, AGP for respondent no.1 and 2. .... (CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J) DATE :13th January, 2010. ------------------------------ ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. The order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18th February, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 6894/2008 is allegedly flouted and thereby a contempt 2 is committed by the respondents. 2. The directions of Division Bench of this Court dated 18th February, 2009 are as under:- "2. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the respondent No.4, that the application filed by him on 17th May, 2008, which is pending before the District Collector, Beed, should be decided within a stipulated time. 3. Accordingly, we direct the respondent no. 4 to decide the application of the petitioner within eight weeks from today." 3. The Counsel submits that within a period of 8 weeks from 18th February, 2009, the respondent no.4- Collector personally should have decided the said application or representation dated 17th May, 2008, same is not done as the respondent no.4 learned Collector directed his sub-ordinate to deal with the matter and his sub-ordinate passed the order that too belatedly. 4. In order to substantiate the contention it is 3 said, directions were personal or independent to respondent no.4, he should have adhere being Collector. The learned Counsel has placed reliance in the matter of Hari Dev V/s Mohinder Lal and another (1982 CRI.L.J. 569) and particularly the observations in paragraph no.6 of the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. 5. Having heard the learned AGP and the learned Counsel, I find that obviously there is no intentional delay in taking decision on the application of the petitioner. However the delay if said is not deliberate. The Officers were transferred and the chart of transfer of the Officer is given in paragraph no.9 of the Affidavit in Reply by the learned Collector. That apart the fuel is added to the situation due to the Loksabha election at the material time, held on 22nd April, 2009. 6. In the light of the facts detailed above, the delay in passing the order on the representation dated 15.06.2009, the delay being properly explained, is accepted and I hold that, it is not deliberate. 4 7. Other contentions that it was the respondent No.4 (District Collector, Beed) who should have personally decided the application/representation, in the light of judgment in the matter of Hari Dev (supra) needs to be considered. In the matter of Hari Devi grievance was against Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Mr.Theog who was respondent in the Writ Petition, the Court could have directed the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil) to decide the said application, but Court did not do so it was directed to Deputy Commissioner to do the enquiry in particular matter or manner. No such eventuality is surface in the present proceedings. 8. Though the direction is specified, the Respondent No.4-Collector in the light of the Government Resolution dated 30.04.1992 all the powers are delegated in relation to the matters of supply under Essential Commodities Act to the Additional Collector of particular district and hence the Collector Respondent No.4 has asked the Additional Collector to decide the representation/ application of 5 the present petitioner. Delegation of powers can not be said to be in contravention or breach of orders passed by this Court particularly the Additional Collector otherwise was not party to petition, there is no bias of the Additional Collector against the petitioner. 8. During course of submission the learned Counsel pointed out Annexure P-I page No.38 in past he had grievance dated 01.04.2008 against the Additional Collector who was then District Supply Officer, Beed. However, this by itself will not be a ground to hold that the Additional Collector, Beed could not legally pass the order dated 15.06.2009. There is no contempt, the petition lacks merits, it is dismissed. (K. U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE gas/cp139.09