cp175.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETN. NO.175/2011 IN WRIT PETN. NO.5310/2010 (D) Seloo Shikshan Mandal -vs- Sumit Malik and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri R. V. Rathod, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. Pathan, AGP for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 12.10.2011. By this contempt petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent No.2 for alleged willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court by the order dated 29/06/2011 in Writ Petition No.5310/2010. By the order dated 29th of June, 2011, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to take appropriate decision on the proposal of the headmaster after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition within a period of four months. The parties were directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 19/07/2011. This Court was not inclined to entertain this petition on 14/09/2011 as the time granted to the respondent No.2 to decide the proposal had not expired. However, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner cp175.11.odt 2/2 appeared in the office of the respondent No.2 on 19/07/2011, the respondent No.2 did not hear the petitioner and instead issued the communication dated 18/07/2011. In this background, a notice was issued to the respondent No.2. On receipt of the notice, the respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit in reply and has stated the circumstances in which the notice dated 18/07/2011 was issued. It is stated in the reply that on 19/07/2011, the mother of the respondent No.2 was ill and the respondent No.2 was on leave. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the respondent No.2 cannot be said to have disobeyed the order passed by this Court on 29/06/2011. The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the respondent No.2 is ready to hear the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition as early as possible so that a decision could be taken on the proposal within a period of four months. The petitioner undertakes to remain present before the respondent No.2 on 20th of October, 2011. It is informed to this Court that the respondent No.2 would serve the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the writ petition and inform them about the date of hearing. For the reasons aforesaid, the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents are dropped. The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE