1 cp358-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.358 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2098 OF 2009 Nagraj Pukhrajji Sheth ..Petitioner Versus Shri Ashokrao Chavan, Hon’ble Chief Minister & Minister for Urban Development Department and others ..Respondents. Mr.S.M. Sabrad for the petitioner. Mr.A.I. Patel, Government Pleader for respondent No.2. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar, J. DATE : 30 July, 2010. P.C. : 1. The grievance of the petitioner in this Contempt Petition is that the respondents have committed breach of the order passed by this Court on 26 February 2009 in Writ Petition No.2098 of 2009. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to make an application to the State Government and the State Government was directed to conduct an enquiry and decide the application within a period of three months thereafter. 2 cp358-09 2. As per the aforesaid order, the petitioner made an application on 4 March 2009 and the same was decided by order dated 23 February 2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that ; firstly the order dated 23 February 2010 has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed by this Court on 26 February 2009. Secondly, it is contended that the Chief Minister could not have delegated the power to the Secretary to decide the application. 3. In my view, there is no merit in the above contention. As regards the delay in disposing of the application, sufficient reasons are given in para 2 and 3 of the affidavit in reply. From the affidavit in reply, it is clear that there was no intention on the part of the respondents to intentionally disobey the orders of this Court. As regards the order passed by the Chief Minister directing the Secretary to decide the application of the petitioner, in my view, in the absence of any specific order directing a particular authority to decide the application, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Chief Minister. 4. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed with no oder as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) 3 cp358-09