1cp-171-08 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION No. 171 OF 2008 Baburao Kondiba Bavdhane & Ors .. Petitioners. vs. Mr Prabhakar Deshmukh and Ors. ..Respondents. Mr Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr A.I. Patel, A.G.P.,for the Respondent No.2. State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. The learned A.G.P. Appearing for the State waives service. 3. Heard rival parties for some time. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for taking appropriate action under the Contempt of 2cp-171-08 Courts Act against the respondent No.1 who is the Collector,Pune for committing deliberate and wilful contempt of the order of this Court. The said order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 27th September,2000 in W.P.No.3659/1993 along with W.P.No.4305/1997. It was a common order. Certain directions were given to respondent No.1 to decide the pending application concerning allotment of land in favour of co-operative societies formed by the members belonging to the V.J. and N.T. Community and to pass appropriate orders expeditiously. 4. It is the factual position that for alleged contempt of the same order of the Division Bench earlier Contempt Petition No. 219/2003 was filed by the another petitioner, a member of the society of which the present petitioners are claiming to be the members. Said earlier contempt petition was dismissed and notice issued against the contemner 3cp-171-08 Collector,Pune was discharged vide order dated 10-7-06 giving reasons that revision made by the members of the society have been duly processed by the competent authority and have been rejected with reasons. Considering dismissal of earlier contempt petition, nothing survives in the present contempt petition which is admittedly filed on the same grounds as then were available to the petitioner in C.P. No. 219/2003. In that view of the matter, present contempt petition is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. Rule is discharged. Notice issued against the contemner respondent no.1 is discharged. (A.R.JOSHI,J)