1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3490/2004 (Shri Mungsaji Maharaj Sahakari Soot Girini Ltd. Chikhli Vs. The Secretary, Mah. State & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Kadukar h/f Mr. Parchure, Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. Indira Bodade, A.G.P., for R-1 & 2. Mr. M.V. Samarth Adv. For R-3. Mr. M.R. Gupta, Adv. For R-4. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the Division Bench of this Court had, by the order dated 8/2/2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3490/2004, directed the respondent-Bank to consider the representation and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order, the respondent-Bank had not decided the same in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 8/2/2007. The respondent-Bank has filed an affidavit-in-reply and it is submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 3 by the learned counsel Shri 2 Samarth that there was no disobedience whatsoever of the order passed by the Division Bench on 8/2/2007 and the directions issued by the Court to the Bank were duly complied with within the time stipulated by the Court in the order. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in view of the order passed by the Division Bench on 8/2/2007, the Bank has decided the representation filed by the petitioner, on 23/5/2007 itself. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that these facts were already communicated to the counsel for the petitioner in the reply sent by the respondent-Bank to the counsel for the petitioner, on 4th July, 2007. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no reason whatsoever for initiating any action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP