1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 56/2010 IN W.P. NO. 396/2009 (D) (Mata Jijau Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha VERSUS Sanjaykumar, Secretary, State of Maharashtra, Deptt. Of Education) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.N. Shende, counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondent no.1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MAY 7, 2010 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner seeks action against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.02.2009 in Writ Petition No.296/2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had applied to the respondent for permission to open a secondary school at village Nahartola, District Gondia but, the Government had not taken a decision in that regard and the Division Bench of this Court had, by the order dated 11.02.2008, directed the State Government to consider the grievance of the petitioner at the earliest provided there was no legal infirmity in doing so. 2 On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order dated 11.02.2009 of which the contempt is alleged along with the policy decision of the State Government dated 20.07.2009 which is annexed to the reply, it appears that the respondents cannot be said to be guilty of having committed contempt of the order dated 11.02.2009. Firstly, this Court had not issued a specific direction to the State Government to decide the application of the petitioner within a particular time. The Court had merely observed while disposing of the writ petition that there was no reason why the State Government should not consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law if there is no legal impediment in doing so. It is rightly brought to the notice of this Court that after the order was passed on 11.02.2009, the Government was deliberating on the issue and a decision was taken by the State Government on 20.07.2009 rejecting the request of the petitioner and the similarly situated persons and this decision was conveyed to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this decision was probably not received by the petitioner. In any case, the policy decision dated 20.07.2009 is annexed to the reply and the same is received by the petitioner along with affidavit-in-reply and the annexure to the policy decision 3 dated 20.07.2009 states the reasons for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for grant of permission for opening a secondary school at village Nahartola. Since the Division Bench of this Court had not directed the State Government to decide the representation/ application for permission within a stipulated time and since the application of the petitioner has been decided by an order dated 20.07.2009, the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE