1 conp28-10.sxw pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Contempt Petition No. 28 of 2010 . in Writ Petition No.200 of 2009 R.B.Upadhya .. Petitioner v/s. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi ..Respondents Petitioner in person CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd October , 2010 P.C. : 1. Petitioner is present in person. The petitioner wanted Appeal No.CIC/AD/C/2009/000629 to be decided as early as possible. Accordingly, he filed writ petition No.200 of 2009 in this Court. The learned Division Bench on 21.3.2009 directed the respondent to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of which certified copy of the order is served upon the Appellate Authority. The petitioner in peson pointed 2 conp28-10.sxw out that the copy of the order dated 21.3.2009 was served upon the Appellate Authority in the month of June 2009, and the Appellate Authority i.e. the respondent No.2 decided the appeal by order dated 3.11.2009 and remanded the RTI Application to the Appropriate Forum. 2. The petitioner in person submitted that the Order dated 3.11.2009 is not an order at all because the respondent No.2 had no power to remand the matter and he should have decided the same. I do not want to comment on this submission because the respondent No.2 has passed an order and if the petitioner in person feels that it is not an order which ought to have been passed it is open for the petitioner to challenge the said order and secure the appropriate order. In so far as not complying with the order dated 21.3.2009, the petitioner argued that though copy of the order dated 21.3.2009 was served upon respondent no.2, the appeal is disposed of by what may be called as order dated 3.11.2009 and therefore the respondent no.2 is in contempt. 3. After having perused the order dated 21.3.2009, I am inclined to 3 conp28-10.sxw observe that the order dated 21.3.2009 cannot be read to take it as direction to the concerned authorities to dispose of the appeal within three months. I am saying so on account of the word “preferably” . By the use of word “preferably” it was expected by the respondent no.2 to dispose of the said appeal within three months. Not doing that by itself would not amount to contempt. It is difficult to accept that respondent No.2 intentionally did not to dispose of the appeal within 3 months. In my view, no case for contempt is made out. Hence petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]