1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 109 OF 1999 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5411 OF 1998 Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal and Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.S. Bedre, advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 2 On perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 dated 27.2.2001, it appears that the order dated 27.1.1999 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 5411 of 1998 is complied with by the respondents. The only question is whether the said order is complied with within time or not? It is no 2 doubt true that the order is not complied with within time. However, in para 1 of the affidavit in reply, respondent No.2 has tendered unconditional apology, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent have committed contempt of order passed by this Court. The learned AGP submits that the unconditional apology tendered by respondent No.2 can be accepted even for non compliance of the order within stipulated period, as directed by this Court. 3 Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply dated 27.2.2001 filed by respondent No.2, in my opinion, the order dated 27.1.1999 is complied with by the respondent. So far as the grievance that the same is not complied with within time is concerned, in my opinion, there is no willful disobedience of the order and explanation tendered in affidavit in reply is satisfactorily to hold that there is no willful disobedience of the order dated 27.1.1999 passed by the learned Division Bench of this court in writ petition No. 5411 of 1998. 4 In the light of the above, in my view, no further adjudication of this contempt petition is necessary. Contempt petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 3