:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 96 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 96 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1401 OF PETITION NO. 1401 OF PETITION NO. 1401 OF 2008 2008 2008 Mahesh Ramchandra Temkar & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. The Chairman, the Security Guards’ Board for Greater Bombay and Thane District & Ors. ... Respondents. Ms. Ranjana Todankar for the Petitioners. Ms. Lata Desai for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 17TH 17TH 17TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . It is stated fairly on behalf of the Respondents that there was some delay in complying with the order passed by this Court but now the same is complied with. It is stated that the matter was taken up by the State Government under the prevalent policies and rules and that is why the delay took place. It is purely on account of administrative reasons and therefore, there is no wilful disobedience of order of this Court. The only reason that is put forth for proceeding in contempt now is that the Respondents have not sought any extension of time or applied for any clarification and this shows that they had no intention to implement it. :2: 2. Ms. Desai has given explanation that the Respondent did not apply for extension or clarification purely by in-advertance and since large number of applications are moved for registration of the Security Guards that even extension could not be sought. She submits that on account of the Registration Procedure so also for administrative reasons that the delay has occurred. She states that the Board will make every endeavour and ensure that the orders of the Court are complied with within the time frame stipulated by the Court and in case of any difficulties, the Respondents would make appropriate application. 3. In the light of the compliance reported and the explanation placed before the Court in the facts peculiar to this case, the Contempt Petition are dropped. The Contempt Petition is disposed off. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)