1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 236 OF 2008 Smt. Sunita d/o. Ramesh Tak ....Petitioner. Versus Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon ....Respondents. Shri. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. G.V. Wani, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. K.S. Pati, AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 4th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition complains willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 18th of December 2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 7010/2007. This Court had directed the respondent No. 1 - the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Bhusawal to consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merit (if not already decided) within a period of 4 months from the date of this order. The complaint is that this representation has not been decided. 2. Shri. Sant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was the representation dated 8.8.2007, which was required to be considered by the Municipal Council, pursuant to the order dated 18th of December 2007 passed by this Court. 2 3. Shri. Wani, the learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Council points out that on 17.3.2008 the petitioner has been communicated that prior to 1.8.2007 one Kundan Ramesh Tak has been appointed. In the affidavit filed in reply to the contempt petition, it has been stated that the present petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector under section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965, requesting for cancellation of resolution, appointing the said Kundan Ramesh Tak. 3. In view of this aforesaid factual position, the matter is already subjudiced before the Collector under section 308. This Court, by an order dated 18th of December 2007, had directed to decide the representation, if it is not already decided. Since representation was decided, there was no question of deciding it again. 4. In view of this, there is no substance in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy before the Collector and the dismissal of this contempt petition shall not come in his way. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp236.08