IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2008 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 6 OF 2007 BETTY C. ALVARES ... Petitioner Versus MS. MEENA GOLTEKAR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT (NORTH) AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. M. G. S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 6th February, 2009 P.C. Heard. This is a petition for taking action against the respondents for contempt of the Court in as much as it is alleged that they did not comply with the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 21.11.2007. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that she has already moved an application before the Division Bench for extension of time, as far as compliance of respondent no.2 is concerned, she submits that the Division Bench has already extended the time. In view of the fact that Division Bench has been extending time from time to time, there is no question of the respondents comitting contempt of the Court. Therefore, the application against respondent no.2 can be said to be pre-mature. 3. As far as respondent no.1 is concerned, it is stated before me that the order was passed before the contempt application was filed and as such, it seems to me that the contempt has been purged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be awarded costs. It would not be in the fitness of circumstances to award costs since the order has been passed. The application contempt is disposed of. Notice discharged. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.