FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.79 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2231 OF 2009 and CONTEMPT PETITION NO.80 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2232 OF 2009 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ The petitioners in the contempt petition allege that the respondents have not complied the order / direction of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.2231/2009 and 2232/2009. In the said writ petitions, the learned Division Bench on 16th April, 2009 directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners for rental compensation on or before 31st August, 2009. 2 When the matter is called out for hearing, none appears for the petitioners. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Aurangabad and also made a statement that rental compensation has already been paid to the petitioners in respective contempt petitions. 3 The respondents have accepted that they have not complied the order within the stipulated period as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, in para 2, unconditional apology is tendered by the respondent No.3 for not taking decision within the stipulated period as directed by the division Bench of this Court. It is further stated in para 3 that delay caused in complying the order of this Court is not deliberate or intentional. 4 On perusal of the affidavit- in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition Nos.2231 of 2009 and 2232 of 2009 are complied by the respondents. It is true that the orders are not complied within time limit stipulated by the Division Bench. However, in view the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent No.3 in affidavit- in-reply, it is not necessary to take any further action against the respondents. It is also mentioned in the affidavit-in- reply that the delay is not deliberate or intentional. 5 In this view of the matter and in view of the fact that the rental compensation is already paid to the petitioners, nothing remains to be adjudicated further in this contempt proceedings. There is no willful disobedience or deliberate attempt on the part of the respondents in not obeying the orders in time. 6 Hence, in the light of the above, notice is discharged. Contempt Petitions are dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 07.09.2010. kadam/*