{1} cp17111.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.171 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8026 OF 2010 Syed Hidayat Ali s/o Syed Lal Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr. M.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghadge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 29 th April, 2011 PER COURT: 1 The petitioner is alleging violation of the directions issued by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.8026 of 2010. 2 On perusal of the order, it is apparent that in fact no directions are issued in the writ petition. This Court has observed in paragraph 4 of the order, as noted below: “In this view of the matter, application tendered by the petitioner is not liable to be considered. The petitioner may have liberty to approach the atiyat authority and may request for early disposal of his application for grant of succession and, if such request is made, the Atiyat authority may decide the application on {2} cp17111.odt its own merit and in accordance with law. So far as the instant petition is concerned, the same does not call for any interference. Petition therefore stands rejected. 3 It is alleged by the petitioner that the concerned officers have not registered the application, as such, there is violation of the directions. As no directions are issued in the matter, there is no question of willful disobedience thereof. Contempt Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Contempt Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE JUDGE ******* adb/cp17111