1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.427 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6058/2006 (Vaijinath Malubawa Suryawanshi Vs. Shri A.B.Patil) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. K.M.Nagarkar, Adv., for for the petitioner. Mr. V.B.Ghatge, AGP, for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:23/11/2010 1. Heard. The Division Bench, in Writ Petition No.2556/2007, by order 21st Jan.,2008, directed in paragraph no.5 as under: “5. In the light of that, therefore, this petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) to the petition by directing the respondents to decide the representations submitted by the petitioner association within six months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioners. The petition stands withdrawn in respect of prayer clause (A) to the petition granting liberty to 2 the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings, in the event the Government takes a decision which is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. Since we have not adjudicated the petition on merits, all contentions and all issues raised in the petition are kept open. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. “ 2. The present petitioners moved Writ Petition No.6058/2006, seeking identical reliefs referred above dt.21.1.2008. Upon hearing the learned Counsel, by order dt. 18.2.2008, this Court directed the State authorities to consider the representation of the petitioners in the same manner as directed by the Division Bench by its order dt.21.1.2008. 3. The grievance is, inspite of a representation made thereafter by the petitioners, there is no positive response to the representation. 4. The summary of above stated facts illustrates that even if 3 there is laxity on the part of the authorities of the respondents, however, it will seldom be attracting the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners are also required to face bar of limitation as the order is dt.18.2.2008 while the petition is presented on 30th August, 2010. Petition lacks merit, dismissed. However, the learned A.G.P. will ensure, to resolve the representations made by the petitioner as the petitioners are wandering since long for any hearing and decision on their representations. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/427-10cp