1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 175 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITON NO. 2960 OF 2009 Shaikh Hussain s/o Shaikh Sandu ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.S. Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. M.B.W. Khan, advocate for respondent No. 2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 26TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the learned Division Bench on 6.5.2009 in writ petition No. 2960 of 2009. The counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 2 of the said order and submitted that inspite of statement made by the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Wakf Board, the application 2 filed by the petitioner has not been decided finally by respondent No.2 Wakf Board. According to the counsel for the petitioner, enquiry application No. NSBW/114/2081/2006 has not been decided and therefore, the undertaking given to the learned Division Bench is not complied with and thus, the said act of the respondent amounts to contempt. 3 On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.2 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 and submitted that original application was misplaced and therefore, the applicant was requested to give copy of the application and accordingly after receipt of fresh application from petitioner, respondent No.2 started the proceeding afresh on 3.11.2009. On 8.12.2009, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat and in pursuance to the notice to the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner, the parties appeared before respondent No.2 and application which was filed by the petitioner has been finally disposed of. 4 Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed by the petitioner is not decided in time as per the undertaking given before the learned Division Bench of this Court. 5 Be that as it may, it is pertinent to note that once the notices are 3 issued in the contempt proceeding and the matter is proceeded, then the matter will be between the court and the contemnor. Thus, in view of the averments made in the affidavit in reply and in the light of the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in my view, there is no any contempt committed by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 has complied with the undertaking given before the learned Division Bench. Therefore, this contempt petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/