1 2 S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.379/2008 (Udai Ram @ Udai Lal Vs. Shri Madan Lal Yogi & Ors.) Date of Order :: 27th March 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Ashok Changani,for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Purohit, Additonal Advocate General. .... BY THE COURT This contempt petition has been moved complaining of non-compliance of the requirements of the order dated 12.09.2008 as made in Writ Petition No.7058/2008. By the order aforesaid, the concerned Authorities were required to take decision on the representation of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has moved an application (IA No.2580/2009) on 20.02.2009 in this contempt petition with the submissions that respondents have assured him to take the final decision and, therefore, the contempt petition may be permitted to be withdrawn but then, looking to the subject- matter and then, in view of the submissions as made by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents that the requisite decision has already been taken, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for some time to complete his instructions and the matter was passed over to be taken up in the second call. 2 Now, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on instructions that the respondents have taken the decision but adverse to the petitioner by rejecting his representation. Whatever might be the conclusion in the said decision, so far this contempt matter is concerned, the requisite compliance has been carried out, nothing survives to be proceeded with. In view of the above, this contempt petition stands rejected. Notices are discharged. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni