1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 229/2008 (Pramod Shankarrao Khadse VERSUS Vinod Sisat & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri L.H. Kothari, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondent nos.1 to 3 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act for not obeying the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.10.2004 on Civil Application No.6754/2004 in Writ Petition No.4371/2001. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court issued the following directions by the order dated 19.10.2004. “In the aforesaid circumstances, we make the present application absolute in terms of prayer clauses (1 and (2). We direct the State Government to issue necessary form to the Petitioner for admission to D.Ed. Course through postal or correspondence and allow the 2 petition to appear for D.Ed. Course without creating any obstacles. We also direct the Respondent Management to co-operative with the Petitioner as well as State Government to comply with all necessary requirements which are to be carried out by them for allowing the Petitioner to appear for the said D.Ed. Course.” It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have not permitted the petitioner to complete the internship in the school of respondent as per the Guidance Rule no.3.2 and 3.5 of Guidance of internship. I am afraid that the directions issued by the Division Bench by the order dated 19.10.2004 do not direct the respondent nos.1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to complete internship in School of respondent no.2 and no action for contempt can be initiated against the respondents in that regard. However, the respondent nos.1 and 2 presented a pursis in the Court today along with the written submissions of respondent nos.1 and 2. It is stated in the pursis that the respondent nos.1 and 2 3 undertake to allow the petitioner to complete his D.Ed. Training in the school run and administered by respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e., Gurudeo Ashram Shala Masona, Taluka Achalpur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE