1 C.P. No.142/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.142 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7765 OF 2009 Kalyan s/o Eknath Bhate ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate holding for Shri K.B. Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for State ..... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 8th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the State. Learned A.G.P. submits that, the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition has been complied with on 5.8.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was specific direction by the Division Bench to comply the order within four weeks, said order is not complied within time. 2 C.P. No.142/2011 2. It is true that the order of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition has not been complied with by the respondents within time. However, the learned A.G.P. submits that, due to some administrative difficulties and since the file was misplaced, the order could not be complied within time. Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply and contended that the unconditional apology is tendered for not complying the order in time. 3. The Supreme Court, in case of Suresh Chandra Poddar Vs. Dhani Ram & ors. [ (2002) 1 SCC 766 ], has held that even where the order of court is complied with, subsequent to receipt of notice of contempt, court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with action for contempt. Since the order is complied with and from the affidavit-in-reply it is apparent that, there was no any willful disobedience as such. In that view of the matter, nothing further survives for consideration in this Contempt Petition. Contempt Petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) fmp/cp142.11