1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 158/2008 IN W.P. NO.219/2008 (DECIDED) (Shiladevi Narayan Muneshwar VERSUS The Education Officer (Secondary) Z.P. Yavatmal & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.W. Sambre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Shri Pillai, counsel for the R-2 & 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against respondent nos.1 to 3 for willfully and deliberately disobeying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.02.2008 in Writ Petition No.219/2008. It appears that the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing no.219/2008 challenging therein the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the management. Yet another prayer was made by the petitioner for a Writ of Mandamus or direction to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to the 2 petition, to conduct and initiate an enquiry against respondent no.4 to the writ petition for committing an offence of sexual harassment to the petitioner, at the workplace, which also amounted to outraging the modesty, according to the law laid down in the case of Vishakha Versus State of Rajasthan. It further appears that the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to show any indulgence in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 01.02.2008. As regards the second prayer for initiation of an enquiry against respondent no.4 to the writ petition, the High Court kept the issue open with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation in that regard within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the representation was made within a period of two weeks. 3 Since the Court had expected the competent authority to look into the representation and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, and since it was not decided by the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, the contempt petition was filed on 06.09.2009. It appears that after the High Court decided Writ Petition No.219/2008 on 01.02.2008, the Education Officer asked the respondent no.2 and 3/Management of the Institution to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to the Education Officer. The said report was submitted to the Education Officer on 17.03.2008. The Education Officer, however, asked the management to submit a fresh report by considering the guidelines laid down in the case of Vishakha Versus State of Rajasthan. The management thereafter sent the report on 31.01.2009. The Education Officer, after considering 4 the report submitted by the management, decided the representation of the petitioner on 02.03.2009. A copy of the decision is handed over the counsel for the petitioner in the Court, today, though according to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, a copy of the same is sent to the petitioner on 02.03.2009. It is clear from the order dated 01.02.2008 that the Division Bench of this Court had not granted the relief in terms of prayer clause (b) to the petition. The Court had merely granted liberty to the petitioner to make a representation within a period of two weeks and had expected the competent authority to look into it and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of the receipt thereof. It appears that the Education Officer has endeavoured to comply with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.02.2008 at his best. Though there is some delay in deciding the representation, it cannot be said that the respondents 5 have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.02.2008. In any case, the High Court had not directed the respondents to perform the act within a particular time and had only expected the authorities to proceed with the matter and decide the representation within a period of three weeks. In the result, the contempt proceedings against the respondents need to be dropped and are hereby dropped. The notice dated 10.09.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE