1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 67 OF 2008 Masjid s/o. Ahmed Shaikh ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors ....Respondents. Shri. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.S. Patil, AGP for the respondent No. 1. Shri. S.S. Manale, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 5. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 17th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 13th of August 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 2065/2006, directed to respondent management to disburse the amount of arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of order in accordance with the policy, norms and in the facts of the case. The management was further given liberty to claim subsistence allowance from the respondent State for the period from which the management is getting the grants from the State. It was further directed that in case, if such claim is raised by the management before the State authorities, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 2 2. An affidavit of the Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra has been filed today. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri. Patil invited my attention to the paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, which are relevant, are reproduced below :- "4. I further say that the Respondent No. 2 has paid grantes to the management to clear the dues due under said order dated 13.8.2007 and it was specifically directed to pay Rs. 59038/- to the petitioner, through Demand Draft bearing No. 235486 of Rs. 3,78,000/- dated 11/11/2009 drawn in the name of Respondent No. 4. The copy of the said Demand Draft dated 11/11/2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-R-3. 5. I further say that the Respondent No. 4 has made payment of Rs. 59038/- to the petitioner through Demand Draft bearing No. 235489 dated 13/11/2009 drawn in the name of Petitioner. The copy of the said Demand Draft dated 13/11/2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit-R-4." 3. Shri. Ashtekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the compliance is belated and not within the period stipulated by this Court. In view of the fact that the compliance has already been made about which there is no dispute, I do not see any case for taking cognizance of the contempt. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp67.08