1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 3363 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICAITON NO. 12926 OF 2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2010 Genu s/o Ananda Kale ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, advocate for the petitioner Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. S.T. Shelke, advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This Court on 27.8.2010, directed respondent No.2 Dr. P. Ambalgaon, the Collector, Ahmednagar to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.2 was directed to remain present before this Court on 21.9.2010 at 10.30 a.m. sharp. 2 2 Respondent No.2 has filed civil application No. 12926 of 2010 praying for dispensing with the personal appearance before this Court on 21.9.2010. The application was mentioned by learned A.G.P. and upon granting circulation today, civil application with contempt petition is placed for hearing. 3 Respondent No.2 has also filed detailed affidavit on 15.9.2010 in contempt petition. In the said affidavit, in para 5 it is stated that the respondent No.2 has taken necessary steps and decided the application of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner as well as acquiring body and necessary orders are passed on 14.9.2010. In para 6, it is mentioned that acquiring body respondent No.4 has paid rental compensation to the petitioner by cheque on 7.9.2010 and to that effect the petitioner has given receipt also. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed this position. 4 On reading affidavit in reply, it appears that the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 3363 of 2009 on 15.7.2009 is complied with by the respondents. It is true that the said order/direction is not complied with within stipulated period. However, respondent No.2 in his affidavit in reply has explained the circumstances under which it was made impossible for him to comply with the said order. Respondent No.2, in the affidavit in reply filed on 15.9.2010, has tendered unconditional apology. In the light of the 3 averments in para 2 to 7 of the affidavit in reply and in view of the fact that the order of the learned Division Bench is already complied with by respondent, in my opinion, personal presence of respondent No.2 before this Court on 21.9.2010 is not necessary. There is consensus between the counsel appearing for the parties that the contempt petition itself can be disposed of in the light of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2. 5 In the light of above, show cause notice issued to respondents stands discharged. Since nothing remains to be adjudicated in this contempt petition, this contempt petition as well as civil application No. 12926 of 2010 are disposed of. 6 Needless to mention that the presence of respondent No.2 before this Court on 21.9.2010 is not required in view of disposal of contempt petition as well as civil application. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/