1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2007 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 235 OF 2007 in WRIT PETITION NO. 6899 OF 2006 Sugandh s/o Prasad Shinde & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents (Orig.Contemnors) None for the petitioners. Mr. D.A.Patil, AGP, for respondent No.1-State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. DATE: 3rd June, 2008. P.C. C. C. 1. None for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Patil, learned AGP pointed out that in view of the affidavit filed by the Joint Charity 2 Commissioner on 28.11.2007, the order passed by this Court has been already complied with and the delay in compliance is also explained in the said affidavit. It appears that on 17.10.2006 in Writ Petition No.6899 of 2006, this Court had directed the Joint Charity Commissioner to dispose of the application of the petitioner - Manik Sadashiv Jadhav and the application of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on or before 30th April, 2007. 3. This contempt Petition was filed on 10.7.2007 on the ground that the said order was not complied with as the applications were not disposed of till then. The first affidavit dated 16.8.2007 filed by Mr. Yatin Dattatraya Shinde, Joint Charity Commissioner, reveals that the process fee was paid on 3.4.2007 and thereafter the notice on the main application was issued returnable on 16.4.2007. The acknowledgment was not received and on 23.4.2007, a direction was given to take further steps for service. In these circumstances, it was not possible for him to dispose of the matter upto 30.4.2007. Therefore, the Joint Charity Commissioner had addressed a letter dated 23.4.2007 to the Deputy Registrar of this Court seeking extension of time by about six months. He also pointed out that the Advocate for the petitioners himself was suffering from paralysis from 1st February 2007 to end of April, 2007 and, therefore, he did not attend the 3 matter during that period. In the second affidavit dated 28.11.2007, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner explained that in the above circumstances delay was caused but the applications were disposed of on 17.10.2007. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances explained in the affidavits, I find that there was no disobedience of the order of this Court. The delay was caused due to the circumstances beyond the control of the Joint Charity Commissioner and even before the expiry of the date given by this Court for disposal, he had explained the circumstances in his letter dated 23.4.2007 seeking extension of time. In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, there was no reason or justification for the petitioners to file this Contempt Petition. . Therefore, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)