:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.250 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.250 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.250 OF 2004 Shri Shankar Dinkar Shinde & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan , adv. for the Petitioners. Mr.D.A.Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/by Shri S.R.Borulkar, advs. for the Respondent No.4 and 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. DATE: 2nd April, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The learned counsel for the parties points out that in Writ Petition No.8209 of 2003, an order was passed on 16th December, 2003 directing the respondent no.4, that is the director of the sugar (Administration) to consider an application filed by the petitioner seeking an action under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and to pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks. As enquiry was not held and the appropriate order was not passed, this contempt petition was filed. However, later on due to several developments, in the writ petition, the Court had observed that enquiry under Section 78 is not necessary but enquiry under Section 83 be held and accordingly :2: enquiry was held and action has been taken. The learned counsel makes a statement that in view of this contempt petition need not be proceeded with. 2. In view of the above circumstances, contempt petition stands disposed off without any further action. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)