1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 195/2008 (Sunil Ramraoji Gorle & others VERSUS Sau.Megha Gadgil & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri I.S. Charlewar, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adgokar, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 to 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2009. By the instant petition, the petitioners seek an action against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.06.2008 in Writ Petition No.2221/2008. It appears that by an order dated 19.06.2008, the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.2221/2008 as withdrawn, granted liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority for considering the grievance of the petitioners and the competent authority was directed to decide the same 2 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners made a representation to the respondents on 30.06.2008. Though considerable time had lapsed after the presentation of the representation, according to the petitioners, the respondents had not taken any decision on the representation and, hence, the contempt petition is filed. The respondent no.4 has filed an affidavit- in-reply stating therein that the representation of the petitioners had been decided by the respondent no.1 on 27.11.2008 and a copy of the decision was forwarded to the Office of the respondent no.3 the respondent no.3 thereafter forwarded a copy of the decision on 28.11.2008 to the respondent no.4 and the Office of the respondent no.4 personally tried to serve the copy of the decision upon the petitioners but, the same was not accepted. In these 3 circumstances, it is stated in the affidavit that the Office of the respondent no.4 forwarded a copy of the decision to the petitioners through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due on 03.12.2008. In these circumstances, it is stated on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the respondents have not disobeyed the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.06.2008. Similar statements of facts were also made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1, it is stated that the respondent no.1 had taken the decision on the representation after consulting the Law and Judiciary Department in the matter and the said decision was communicated to the respondent nos.2 and 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 that there was some delay in deciding the representation of the petitioners but, the delay was bona fide and 4 unintentional and primarily on account of administrative exingencies. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4, it appears that the respondent nos.1 to 4 have not committed contempt of this Court by deliberately disobeying the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19.06.2008 in Writ Petition No.2221/2008. The Court had not directed the competent authority to decide the representation within a period of six weeks from the receipt thereof but, had merely expected the competent authority to decide the representation within that period. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the decision rendered by the respondent no.1 is an unreasoned decision and, therefore, the authorities have committed the contempt of the orders of this Court, is not acceptable. 5 In the interest of justice, the contempt petition cannot be proceeded with, against the respondents, any further. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE APTE