1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.106 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.50 OF 2000 Syed Shakeel Chand S/o.Syed Chand PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, h/f. Mr.S.B.Talekar, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr.V.G.Shelke, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.S.T.Shelke, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present contempt petition, petitioners have approached this Court, as according to them, the respondents have not obtained the order dated 03/06/2002, passed in W.P.No.50/2000. In para no. 6 of the said order, directions were issued to the respondents that the order to be passed on the representation of the petitioners within the period of 2 months from the date of the order produced before them. According to the petitioners, the order was produced in the year 2005, but no order was passed on the representation by these 2 respondents till the year 2009, hence according to them, the respondents to be held guilty for the contempt. 2. It appears that the 3rd respondent has filed his affidavit in reply to the contempt petition, in which in para no.2, it is specifically contended that even though the order was passed in Writ Petition No. 50/2000, till the date of filing of affidavit in reply, the order passed by the Division Bench in the Writ petition was not communicated or served on these respondents. It is also alleged in para no.3 that the father of the petitioners has filed the representation dated 07/11/2009 which was received on 25/11/2009, on which immediately the order was passed as the first petitioner completed his secondary education in the year 1981 and second petitioner has completed his secondary education in the year 1984. As per the rules of Code of Secondary School Education that no change can be effected in the school record unless the necessary application moved within the stipulated period. The application was not moved within the stipulated period, hence no change can be effected. This order was intimated to the 2nd petitioner vide order dated 18/01/2010. 3. On perusal of the affidavit in support of the petitioner no.1. which nowhere supports that the order was served in the year 2005, which was passed in the year 2002, dated 03/06/2002, then there is no support to the contention that even though the the order was served on the respondents in the year 2005, within stipulated period, they have not taken the decision. Second aspect reveals from the 3 record is that the representation was received in the office of respondents in the month of November 2009 and within 8 weeks, the decision was taken and communicated to the petitioners as per the annexures annexed with the affidavit in reply, and if it is so, the directions are complied within the stipulated period after service of order on the office of the 3rd respondent. In the premise, there is no delay on the part of respondents as alleged, which amounts to contempt of court by dis-obedience of the order. Contempt petition fails. Notice discharged. Contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/MAR 2010/cp106-05