1 cp12.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.258 OF 2010 Panditraj s/o Saluji Dhanure, Age: 49 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o. Kadrabad, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.B. Girase, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for State - Respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the order dated 19-02-2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition NO. 258 of 2010. Division Bench of this Court looking into the nature of the grievance 2 cp12.11 made in the petition, directed the respondents to forthwith decide the representation made by the petitioner for payment of rent of building of the petitioner. It was further directed that such representation should be decided within six weeks from 19-01-2010. It is further observed that the representation will have to be decided in accordance with law giving opportunity to the petitioner. After decision is recorded on the said representation, the same be communicated to the petitioner not later than two weeks from the date of the order and if the same is favourable to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 shall take steps for release of requisite payment to the petitioner within four weeks from the receipt of order from respondent No.3. The question whether the petitioner would be entitled to interest on delayed payment is also a matter, which is kept open to be considered by the authority on its own merits. 2. In pursuant to the notice of this 3 cp12.11 contempt petition, respondent No. 3 District Social Welfare Officer, Jalna filed affidavit in reply stating therein that, for compliance of the order, hearing was afforded to the petitioner on 23-02-2010 and the petitioner alongwith other three persons including head master have signed the proceedings on 23-02-2010. It is further submitted that after considering the representation of the petitioner, the amount of Rs.24,37,968/- is disbursed to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. Relying on the averments in the rejoinder affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not heard as contended in the affidavit in reply filed, on 23-02-2010 by the authorities. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, signatures which are appearing in the original proceedings, were taken at the time of obtaining undertaking and in fact, no hearing was taken place on 23-02-2010. According to learned Counsel 4 cp12.11 for the petitioner, representation is not decided within time and in accordance with law. In fact, the petitioner is entitled for further Rs.24,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Four lacs only) as per rent certificate issued by P.W.D. Therefore, Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondents should be dealt with, in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned A.G.P. submits that rent has to be fixed by the P.W.D. and also payment has to be made by that Department itself. 5. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for State and after perusing pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto, affidavit in reply and rejoinder filed by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the compliance of the order of the Division Bench, in substance, has been made. Division Bench in its order has directed that the petitioner should be 5 cp12.11 heard before any decision is taken. From the affidavit filed by the respondents and as contended by the learned A.G.P., on the basis of original record available with him, the proceedings does indicate that the petitioner was heard. 6. If the petitioner is further aggrieved by the order of the respondent authorities, he can file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. However, direction of the Division Bench to consider his representation has been complied with. 7. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, continuing this contempt petition any further would be of no use. Hence the Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11 6 cp12.11