1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 57 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4891 OF 2008 Vinodkumar Govindrao Joshi ...Petitioner Versus Shri D.D. Walvi, Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Parbhani and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.C. Navandar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.R. Nikam, advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 4891 of 2008 on 14.8.2008. Learned Division Bench of this Court in para 1 of the said order, observed thus:- “1 The contention of the petitioner is that he has not paid salary from the month of June, 2004 and therefore, he approached this court by the present petition. This would not be a fit case for us to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction. However, the petitioner may represent to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 to 2 decide the same after hearing the management and pass appropriate order, according to law.” 2 On perusal of contents in para 1 of the said order, it appears that the petitioner was granted liberty to make representation to respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 was to decide the same after hearing the management and pass appropriate order, according to law. 3 Counsel appearing for the respondent invited my attention to the letter dated 5.11.2008 at Exh. R-2 and letter dated 1.7.2009 addressed by the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to the petitioner and submitted that in view of the observations of the learned Division Bench of this Court, representation of the petitioner has been decided. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that decision taken by the respondent authorities is without any application of mind and without considering the contents of the representation in its true spirit. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that in real sense, the representation has not been decided by respondent No.3. 3 5 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and after perusal of the document annexed at R-2 (page 30 and 31 of the compilation), I am of the opinion that the respondent No.3 has considered the representation of the petitioner and decided the same. If the petitioner has any grievance about the said decision, it will be open for him to take appropriate proceeding, before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6 With these observations, contempt petition dismissed. Notice discharged. (S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/