1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 200/2008 (Ramesh Balaji Sanap VERSUS Sadanand Koche, CEO, ZP Buldana) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.U. Bhuyar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri G.G. Mishra, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of action under the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.07.2008 in Writ Petition No.3045/2008. It is the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 11.07.2008, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court had directed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana to decide the representation of the petitioner, if it was not decided earlier on its merits within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed in Writ Petition No.3045/2008 on 11.07.2008 was communicated by the 2 petitioner to the respondent on 21.07.2008. It is averred in the petition that the representation of the petitioner was not decided within four weeks from the date of communication of the order or till the filing of the contempt petition on 15.10.2008. The respondent has filed a reply on affidavit. It is stated in the reply that the petitioner was called for hearing on 06.10.2008 but, the petitioner failed to attend the hearing. Again, when the petitioner was called for hearing on 29.11.2008, the petitioner remained present and was heard in the matter. The petitioner was then informed by a communication dated 11.02.2008 that the petitioner was not entitled for promotion to the post of Headmaster, at present. It is stated in the reply that there is some delay in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench on 11.07.2008 and since the delay is due to administrative reasons, the respondent has tendered his unconditional apology before this Court. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that there is some delay in complying with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court 3 on 11.07.2008 in Writ Petition No.3045/2008. It further appears that the delay is due to the failure of the petitioner to attend the hearing on 06.10.2008 and also because of some administrative reasons. Since the respondent has tendered unconditional apology before this Court, it is necessary in the interest of justice to drop the proceedings initiated against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt proceedings against the respondent are hereby dropped. The notice dated 17.10.2008 stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE