1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1093 OF 2007 (Sudhakar Pralhadrao Ambulkar .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. 16TH FEBRUARY, 2009. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks initiation of action against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for violating the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30th of March, 2007 in Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2007 and to punish them accordingly. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court had, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 1093 of 2007 by the order dated 30th March, 2007, directed the respondent No.1 to the writ petition to decide the petitioner's representation within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of the Court. 2 According to the petitioner, when the contempt petition was filed on 26th of February, 2008, the representation of the petitioner was not decided and this clearly shows that the respondents had no regards for the orders passed by the Court, specially the order dated 30th of March, 2007 which directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Shri N.S. Khubalkar, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the representation of the petitioner spoke of two grievances. One was regarding the fixation of seniority and the other was regarding the grant of particular pay scale. It is submitted by the learned AGP that the grievance of the petitioner regrding the fixation of seniority was decided by an order dated 29.05.2008 and the other grievnce made by the petitioner in the representation about grant of pay scale from particular date was also decided by an order dated 09.09.2008. According to the learned AGP, the respondents have not committed contempt of Court as they have not willfully or deliberately decided the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order from the Court. According to the learned AGP though there was 3 some delay in deciding the representation, it was due to the difficulty mentioned in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is clear that the respondents cannot be said to have committed the Contempt of Courts within the meaning of provisions of the Act of 1971. The proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act are, therefore, dropped. The Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE *rrg.