1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEPT PETITION NO. 13 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3110/2007 (Kamlakar s/o Mahadeo Garad Vs. Shri D.B. Zalke & anr.) 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. M.L. Vairagade, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. N.S.Khubalkar, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 17 th JANUARY, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner sought an action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for deliberately disobeying the orders passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 13/9/2007 in Writ Petition No. 3110/2007. It is the case of the petitioner that though, by the judgment passed by the learned single Judge on 13/7/2007, the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of three months from the date of the judgment, the respondents had not complied with the order. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, it is pointed out that the respondent no.1 had no power to recruit any 2 employee, without the prior approval of the Government, and there was no vacancy with the respondent no.1 as on the date of the filing of the affidavit. In such circumstances, according to the respondent no.1, it could not have been said that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge was deliberately disobeyed by the respondents. It is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the proposal of the petitioner was forwarded to the Department for compliance of the order. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2007 was challenged by the respondents in a letters patent appeal and the letters patent appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 13/9/2007 is set aside. Considering the statements of facts stated in the affidavit-in-reply as also the fact that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge on 13/9/2007 is set aside in the letters patent appeal, it is not necessary in the interest of justice to continue the contempt proceedings any further. The contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE RMP