1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2009 Vidyawati Shankarrao Deshmukh .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Ms Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent/Stae. Shri V. S. Panpatte, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 25TH OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 1/State. This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 31st March, 2009 in Writ Petition NO. 1123/2009. In para 4 of the 2 said order, this Court observed thus : "4. Hence Rule. Byw ay of interim relief, we direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to include the name of the petitioner in the final list published by the respondent in respect of Jawahar Vihir Yojana for 2007-08 in the category of small land holders and afford the facilities under the scheme to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. Authenticated copy permitted." 2. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued by this Court on 15th October, 2010, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present before this Court as directed by this Court. Additional affidavit in reply is filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Along with said additional affidavit in reply one order dated 20th October, 2010 issued by the Chief Executi Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, has been annexed. It is stated in the said order that as per directions of the Division Bench, the petitioner's name is included in the final list which is maintained by the respondents in respect of Jawahar Vihir Yojana. In short, the approval is granted by the State Government to include the name of the petitioner in the final list maintained by the respondents to implement Jawahar Vihir Yojana. However, it is made subject to out come of this contempt petition and the application filed by the respondents to 3 vacate the interim relief in the main writ petition which is pending before learned Division Bench. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the directions are given by the learned Division Bench in March 2009, to include the name of the petitioner in the final list published by the respondents in respect of Jawahar Vihir Yojana for 2007-08, within two weeks from passing of the order by the Division Bench, however, no steps were taken for considerable period of more than one and half year. According to counsel for the petitioner no budgetary provision is forthcoming for construction of said well. 4. Upon perusal of para 4 of the order passed by the learned Division Bench, the direction which was issued to the respondents was only to include the name of the petitioner in the final list which is maintained by the respondents in respect of Jawahar Vihir Yojana for 2007-08 in the category of small land holders and further to afford the facilities under the scheme to the petitioner. In my opinion, in substance the order passed by the learned Division Bench has been complied. However, the said compliance is not done within two weeks as directed by the 4 learned Division Bench. There is considerable delay in complying the order, however, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply and submitted that the interim order of the learned Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court and subsequently Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents came to be dismissed with liberty to file appropriate application before the Division Bench for vacating interim relief. Accordingly, the application is pending before the Division Bench for vacating interim relief in main writ petition. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the satisfactory explanation has been offered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also in view of the unconditional apology tendered in the additional affidavit in reply the further adjudication of the contempt petition is not necessary. The contempt petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. It is needless to mention that since the contempt petition itself is disposed of the presence of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is dispensed with. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/Oct. 10