1 cp137.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 137 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6477 OF 2007 [ Jaidev Jyotiram Tandale & Ors. vs. State of Mah.& Ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. N.P. Bangar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for State. Mr. B.R. Survase, Advocate for Resp.No.3. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 PER COURT : Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, on instructions from his client makes a statement that, already cheques are prepared and those will be handed over to the respective petitioners. 2. This contempt petition is filed alleging therein disobedience of the order 2 cp137.11 passed by this Court on 23-11-2007. There was direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the claim of the petitioners for rental compensation in accordance with Circulars issued by the Government and guidelines or regulations, if any, and decide those claims within period of four months. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that there was dispute about the correctness of the calculations arrived at by the S.L.A.O. Therefore, it was necessary to hear the parties and considerable time was consumed in the said process and therefore, delay in complying the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition has been occurred. Said delay is not intentional. There is no any willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 3 cp137.11 4. Upon hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for State and learned Counsel appearing for the S.L.A.O., in my opinion, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt petition, since the grievance made in this contempt petition has been redressed by the respondents. 5. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11