( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 283 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2755 OF 2006 Baburao s/o. Hiraji Mutkule .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. S.B. Wadmare, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 10.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. S.B. Wadmare, A.G.P. for respondent/State. This Court in Writ Petition No. 2755 of 2006 on 21.04.2006 passed following order :- “05. We are disposing of this Writ Petition by directing respondent Nos. 2 to 5, to ensure that the petitioner is heard and decision is taken on ( 2 ) merits, on his prayer for renewal of his licence and restoration of his quota, as a result of his acquittal in criminal case that was initiated against him under Essential Commodities Act, within reasonable time and in any case, within three months from today. We direct specifically to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that the representations are disposed of on merits, within such time.” 2. Thereafter, Contempt Petition No. 168 of 2006 is filed by the present petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 4 in that writ petition is produced at Exh.”B” . Therein, in para 3 respondent No.4 made statement as under :- “3. I say that, after the receipt of the proposal in respect of the petitioner for the aforesaid proposal by the office of the present deponent i.e. District Supply Officer, Beed in the month of August-2006 the same was appropriately verified and considered and ultimately vide order dated 20.9.2006. The copy of the said order dated 20.09.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R-1, the said fair price shop at village Mandwa Ta. Ashti, District Beed in respect of the petitioner has been reinstated to him, pursuant to ( 3 ) which the petitioner has also deposited renewal fees through chalan in the State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch Ashti on 25.09.2006 and accordingly the concerned Tahsildar, Ashti has also forwarded the proposal to the office of the District Supply Officer, Beed for renewal of said license and accordingly the same has been also renewed, vide application dated 28.09.2006 to the office of this deponent, the petitioner has also acknowledged the said fact expressing that, he is withdrawing the proceedings before the Hon’ble Court. The copy of the said application dated 28.09.2006 is annexed herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R2 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble High Court.” 3. Copy of Exh. “B” is produced at pages 16 to 21 of this petition. Order dated 20.09.2006 produced at page No. 20 clearly indicated that the suspension of licence of fair price shop in the name of contempt petitioner was canceled and his licence was restored. The learned advocate for the petitioner says that there was no cancellation/suspension of the licence. In Contempt Petition No.168 of 2006 this Court considered all these records and came to conclusion that the orders are fully complied with. At Exh. “D” order dated 19.10.2006 is produced, which shows that kerosene quota of ( 4 ) 880 liters was sanctioned in the name of the contempt petitioner. It is case of the respondents that quota of food grains was not sanctioned. 4. In my opinion, the order which is passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.04.2006 in Writ Petition No. 2755 of 2006 is regarding taking decision in respect of renewal of licence and restoration of quota. Nothing is further directed than the enquiry and taking decision on merit. 5. In the circumstances of the case this Contempt Petition cannot be entertained. If the contempt petitioner has any other grievance, he may have recourse to the appropriate remedy. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/cp283.07