(1) ca13109-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13109 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2009 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded & another APPLICANTS VERSUS Vidyavati Shankarrao Deshmukh & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.S. Panpatte, advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.P. More, A.G.P. for the respondent/State. Smt. Surekha Mahajan, advocate for respondent No.1. .... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 4th MAY, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This Civil Application has been filed for vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 31st March, 2009. By this order, this Court had directed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to include the name of the petitioner (present respondent No.1) in the final list published by the respondent in respect of Jawahar Vihir Yojana for 2007-08 in the category of small land holders and afford the facilities under the scheme to the petitioner, within a period of two (2) ca13109-10 weeks from that date. 2. An application for vacating the order was filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which was rejected on 24th July, 2009, as the advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had been heard while passing the interim order. Besides that, it was observed that there was no indication that the material which was sought to be placed on record through the Civil Application was not available to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 when the matter was admitted despite due diligence. Since the application was filed without any new events having occurred after 31st March, 2009, the application was not entertained. 3. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Court, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court, by its order dated 11th May, 2010, dismissed the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal since it was directed against an interim order passed by this Court. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner before the Supreme Court i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein to file an affidavit in reply to the petition before this Court, after which an (3) ca13109-10 application for vacating the interim order could be considered by this Court. 4. It appears that since the interim orders were not complied by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner preferred Contempt Petition No. 54/2010. That petition was disposed of as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had produced before the learned Single Judge the order issued by the Government to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, dated 8th October, 2010, indicating that the petitioner's name should be included in the list and further consequential orders were issued. In the light of this, the Contempt Petition was disposed of. No further action was taken against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 although the interim order of this Court has been disobeyed, as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 tendered an unconditional apology which was accepted by this Court. The present Civil Application has been filed again to vacate the interim order. 5. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the Government has directed that its policy should be (4) ca13109-10 implemented qua the petitioner by its order dated 8th October, 2010, issued to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, Nanded, we see no reason to vacate the interim order. 6. It was sought to be argued by Mr. Panpatte, learned advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the order issued on 8th October, 2010 was subject to the result of the petition. There is no indication in the order dated 8th October, 2010 that the directions were issued, subject to the result of the present petition. The directions were, in fact, issued in view of the interim order passed by this Court. Consequently, the Civil Application is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] NPJ/ca13109-10