IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.199 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4015 OF 2009. Rajiv Gandhi Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mauja Ambadi, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1 Sanjiv Kumar, Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.D. Patnoorkar , Advocate for Petitioner. Shri N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 9th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1. This contempt petition is filed alleging therein that the respondents have not complied with / obeyed the order passed by this Court on 14th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No.4015/2009. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the paragraph 2 of the order passed by the learned Division Bench dated 14th January, 2010. It is submitted that in spite of specific direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and to take final decision after hearing the petitioners within three months, the respondents have not decided those representations within three months as directed by this Court. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 Shri Sanjiv Kumar working as Secretary, Education Department, submits that the delay in compliance of the order dated 14th January, 2010 is not deliberate or intentional. However, due to administrative difficulties and procedure to be followed for decision making process, the delay has occurred in taking decision. The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and contended that the direction / order dated 14th January, 2010 is duly complied with. The decision on the representations of the petitioner has been taken after hearing the petitioner. This position is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader further invited my attention to para 7 of the affidavit filed by respondent no.1 and submitted that sufficient explanation has been given in the said para and also unconditional apology is tendered by the respondent No.1 for not complying the order within the stipulated period of three months. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, perused the earlier order dated 26th August, 2010 passed by this Court. In the said order, the respondent No.1 was directed to remain present before this Court and in due regard to the said direction, the respondent No.1 is present before this Court. It is true that the direction / order of this Court dated 14th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No.4015 of 2009 is not complied within three months from the date of passing of the order. However, explanation offered by the respondent no.1 in para 7 of the affidavit appears to be probable. There is no hesitation in accepting the said explanation. In para 7 of the affidavit, the respondent No.1 has also tendered unconditional apology for not taking decision within three months on the representations of the petitioner as directed by this Court for the reasons stated in para 7 of the affidavit. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the order dated 14th January, 2010 is complied with by the respondent No.1, and the explanation offered in para 7 of the affidavit, in my opinion, there is no any deliberate attempt or willful disobedience on the part of the respondent No.1 in not complying with the directions / order dated 14th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No.4015 of 2009, within the stipulated time. In this view of the matter, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*