1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 12/2005 IN L.P.A. 177/2004 IN W.P.No. 919/2004 (Triveni Jayendra Khisti Versus Jayraj Fatak, State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. Mohgaonkar, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1 & 3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2008. Heard. This contempt petition has been filed for taking action against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Civil Application No.7276/2004 in Letters Patent Appeal No.177/2004 on 29.10.2004. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the order dated 29.10.2004, which reveals that the respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.919/2004, who is respondent no.2 in the instant Contempt Petition also, was directed to handover the charge of the post held by him to the petitioner on his retiring from the service. It is stated in the contempt petition that the respondent no.2 did 2 not handover the charge of the post held by him to the petitioner in spite of the clear order passed by this Court on 29.10.2004 in the Letters Patent Appeal and in stead handed over the charge to some other Assistant Teacher. It is, however, brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of this contempt petition, by an order passed by this Court in yet another matter filed by the petitioner herein, the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Head Mistress. In view of the aforesaid statement, it appears that it is necessary in the interest of justice to drop the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents. The contempt proceedings are hereby dropped and the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. JUDGE APTE