1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 217/2008 (Kishor Kalusingh Chauhan VERSUS The Collector, Washim & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sau. V.P. Thakre, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.B. Patil, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent nos.1 and 2 were already discharged by the order dated 01.12.2008. By this petition, the petitioner seeks an action against the respondent no.3 for not implementing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.07.2008 in Writ Petition No.3010/2008 under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. By the order dated 10.07.2008, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim to decide the representation made by the petitioner 2 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. It appears that the Court had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to communicate the order to the respondent no.3 to that petition, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim. It is the case of the petitioner that though the order was communicated to the respondent no.3, the respondent no.3 did not decide the representation within a period of six weeks from the receipt of the communication. The respondent nos.1 and 2 were discharged by the order dated 01.12.2008 and notice was issued only to the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 has filed the reply. It is stated in the reply on affidavit that the representation dated 24.06.2008 has been decided by the respondent no.3 and a communication in that regard was sent to the petitioner on 15.11.2008. It is further stated in the reply that though the Division Bench of this Court 3 had directed the answering respondent to decide the representation dated 24.06.2008 within a period of six weeks, there was some delay in deciding the representation as the said fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent no.3 by the concerned Section Officer. It is stated in the reply that an enquiry has been initiated against the concerned Section Officer and appropriate action is also taken against the concerned Officer who was at fault for not bringing the order of this Court to the knowledge of the answering respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is stated in the reply that the answering respondent had not breached or disobeyed the orders passed by this Court on 10.07.2008. On perusal of the affidavit/reply which is presented by the counsel for the respondent no.3 today, it appears that the respondent no.3 has not deliberately breached or disobeyed the orders passed 4 by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.07.2008 in Writ Petition No.3010/2008. It is, therefore, necessary to drop the proceedings initiated against the respondent no.3 in that regard. The contempt proceedings against respondent no.3 are, therefore, dropped. The notice issued to the respondent no.3 on 01.12.2008 hereby stands discharged. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE APTE