1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6291 OF 2008 Mr. Narendra Philip Koli . ...Petitioner. . Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. ---- Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Petitioner. Mr. A.I.I. Patel, AGP for the State-Respondent. ---- CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 5 th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Warunjikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Patel, AGP appearing on behalf of the State-Respondent. 2. The issue involved in the present Contempt Petition is that the State- Respondent failed to comply the Order dated 8.9.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.6290 of 2008 along with connected Writ Petitions. (Coram: Swantanter Kumar, C.J. & A.P. Deshpande, J.). 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that as per Order dated 8.9.2008 this Court directed the Respondents to 2 consider the Petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate order within one week from the date of the said Order dated 8.9.2008. He further submitted that though the Respondents have complied the said Order on 16.10.2009, there is a delay on the part of the Respondents, and therefore, appropriate action be taken against the Respondents for non-compliance of the said Order within stipulated time. On the other hand, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents tendered a copy of the affidavit-in-reply dated 16.10.2009 of Sanjay Kumar, Secretary to Government, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, and a copy of affidavit-in-reply of Sheila Tiwari, State Project, Controller & Joint Director, Maharashtra Prathmik Shikshan Parishad, Mumbai dated 11.11.2009. Though the original copies of both the affidavit-in-reply are not on record, the xerox copies of the said affidavits-in- reply are taken on record. 4. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents submited that there is a delay on the part of Respondents to comply with the Order within time because of departmental procedure. He submitted that the concerned department took some time to take immediate decision in the meantime. 5. In any case, the State-Respondents have complied the above Order, and issued G.R. in pursuance of the Order passed by this Court. 3 6. Considering the explanation given by the Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply, I do not find any substance in the present contempt petition and same is accordingly disposed of. (K.K. TATED,J.)