cp166.11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ CONT. PETITION NO. 166 OF 2011 ,In WP/5334/2010 JALGAON ZILLAL MARATHA VIDYA PRASARAK SAH SAMAJI LIMITED JALGAON THROUGH HON SECR VERSUS SUNIL BANSODE, DIST. DY. REGISTRAR CO-OP ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dighe Pravin S Advocate for Respondent(s) : Mr. kulkarni Sudhir D. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: August 10, 2011 ... Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2 The representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik. It is true that the said representation has not been decided within time as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. However, the fact remains that as on today, the representation of the petitioner has been finally decided by the cp166.11 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik. 3 It is true that the District Deputy Registrar - respondent herein instructed the learned AGP to make a statement before the Division Bench that the representation of the petitioner will be decided by him. However, subsequently, he realized that the Divisional Joint Registrar is the competent authority to decide the said representation and not the respondent. The respondent has also filed additional affidavit stating therein that it was his mistake while giving instructions to the learned AGP to make a statement that he will decide the representation of the petitioner and for his mistake, he has tendered unconditional apology in additional affidavit-in-reply. 4 The Supreme Court in case of Suresh Chandra Poddar vs. Dhani Ram and others [(2002) 1 SCC 766] has taken a view that even where the order of court is complied with, subsequent to receipt of notice of contempt, cp166.11 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD _____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________ court should show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with action for contempt. 5 In that view of the matter and in view of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent, nothing further survives in this contempt petition. The contempt petition stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) PLK/*