1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 278 OF 2008 Shriram s/o. Kishanrao Ghatole, R/o. Shelgaon, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. S.W. Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th December, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This petition complains about the willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 9th of June 2008, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6716/2006. By this order, the respondents were directed to decide the pending proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioner within three months from the date of the order and to communicate the same to the petitioner. The period of three months expired in September 2008. However, no decision was taken by the respondents. Hence, this contempt petition. 2 2. Notice in this contempt petition was issued on 11.11.2008, in response to which an affidavit was filed on 20.12.2008 stating that the proposal has been decided and the copy of the communication dated 7.10.2008 was forwarded to the petitioner. However, it was found that the communication dated 7.10.2008 pertained only to the payment of the salary of the petitioner and no decision was taken therein with regard to grant of approval to the post of petitioner. Hence, the matter was adjourned on 18.11.2009 at the instance of learned A.G.P. for filing additional affidavit. 3. Now additional affidavit dated 7.12.2009 has been filed, in which it has been stated that the decision has been taken on 5.12.2009, copy of which is annexed to the affidavit, whereby the proposal in respect of appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. Thus, the order has been complied with. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there has been delay in compliance of the order. It is only after filing of this contempt petition, the decision has been taken. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner was unnecessarily driven to this Court to file the instant contempt petition and he incurred the cost for filing this petition, engaging lawyer etc. He further states that if the decision had been taken within a stipulated period, then this action would not have arisen for 3 petitioner to spent for filing of this contempt petition. 5. In view of the fact that the order has been complied with, though belatedly, I do not find any reason to proceed with the instant contempt petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 6. It is, however, true that the petitioner has driven to this Court as respondent No. 2/Education Officer has not passed the order within a stipulated period and it was passed only after the notices in this contempt petition were issued. In view of this, the respondent No. 2/ Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nanded will have to bear the cost of this contempt petition. However, the respondent No. 2 shall pay cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rs. five thousand) to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today and shall submit compliance report to this Court. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp278.08