(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2004 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100 OF 2004 Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Shikshan Sanstha, Kapuskhed ...Petitioner Versus Shri. R.C. Joshi & Others ...Respondents ..... None for the petitioner. Mr.A.H. Palekar, A.G.P.for Respondent No.3. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2005 P. C.:- P. C.:- P. C.:- 1. None present for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had submitted a proposal for allotment of a plot of land in Islampur town to the State Government and the same was not decided, the petitioner therefore, filed writ petition No.2698 of 2002 which came to be disposed of by order dated 7.3.2003 by the Division Bench of this Court directing the State Government to decide the same representation within a period of six months. 3. In this petition it is alleged that the said order passed in writ petition No. 2698 of 2002 has (-2-) been willfully disobeyed and therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the contempt of this Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the last two occasions, the contempt petition was adjourned at the request of the learned A.G.P. to take instructions. Today Mr. Palekar, the learned A.G.P. has referred the letter dated 4.3.2005 which he has received from the Additional Secretary for the Department of Revenue and Forest, Government of Maharashtra. It appears that the subject plot located in survey No. 129/2 admeasuring two hectors and 6 Ares has already been allotted to the Islampur Municipal Council for rehabilitation of hutment dwellers under the Walmiki Ambedkar Rehabilitation Scheme on 25.2.2005, based on the demand made by the said Municipal Council and the report submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, at Pune. The representation submitted by the petitioner and directed to be decided by this Court thus, does not survive any further. 5. The petition is, therefore, rejected.