{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.13 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3632 OF 2008 Momedian Multipurpose Youth Association, Beed PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.V.Chillarge, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.G.Shelke, AGP for respondents No.1 to 3 State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 3rd May 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. The petitioner has alleged that the order dated 21st July 2008 passed in writ petition No.3632/2008 is not complied with by the respondents inspite of the representation made by the petitioner on 25th September 2008 to respondent No.4, i.e. Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Beed. 2. In response to the notice of this contempt petition, all the respondents appeared and filed their affidavit in replies. One affidavit in reply is filed by Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, School {2} Education and Sports Department on 13th September 2009 and another by respondent No.3, Mr.Sunil Chavan, Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad on 9th September 2009. On perusal of both the affidavits it is clear that the order passed in the writ petition was received by respondent No.3 on 19.09.2008 and the respondent No.3, in turn informed the Government on 06.10.2008 about the said order. Accordingly, communication and papers were received by the respondents in December 2008. After receipt of papers from various departments, the Government took a decision on 6th April 2009 and communicated the same to the Deputy Director, Aurangabad on 8th April 2009 and also communicated to the petitioner. The decision is taken by the Government that the representation / proposal of the petitioner is rejected on the ground that there is already Urdu medium primary school of Zilla Parishad, Beed and also on the ground that there is no sufficient bank balance with the petitioner. It is further stated that this decision was communicated to the petitioner on 8th April 2009. 3. Considering the fact that the directions given by this Court on 21st July 2008 while disposing of the writ petition No. 3632/2008 are complied with, as the proposal of the petitioner is decided in accordance with law and the decision is also communicated to the petitioner accordingly, nothing survives in the present contempt petition. 4. The respondents have tendered unconditional apology {3} for not taking the decision within the stipulated time and they have also given reasons for the delay. Considering the explanation offered, the apology is accepted and it prima facie appears that there is no intentional or willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. In view of this, the contempt petition stands dismissed. The respondents are discharged from the contempt. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cp13-09