1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 162 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. CONT. PETITION NO.:162 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.:6772 OF 2009 *** Bajirao Dnyanoba Survase And Ors VERSUS The Secretary Irrigation Deptt State Of Mah Mantralayal Mumbai And Ors *** Mr. Kale Ajeet B., Advocate for Petitioner Mr. D. V. Tele, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.4 and 6. Mr. R D Biradar, Advocate for Resondent No.5. *** 1. This contempt petition alleges disobedience/ contempt of the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6772 of 2009 on 5th October, 2009. This Court passed the order order: "Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents would decide the petitioners' representation dated 28.4.2009 expeditiously. In view of the statement, nothing survives in the petition. The same is disposed of. No order as 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 162 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. to costs." 2. Pursuant to the notice issued in this contempt petition, affidavit in reply is filed by the Respondent Nos.4 and 6. It is stated in the said affidavit in reply that the representation of the petitioner has been decided. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seriously disputed this position and submitted that, no hearing was given to the petitioner. The representation is not decided in a manner which is required to be decided. Only formality is completed, since statement was made before the Division Bench that representation of the petitioner would be decided. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no decision at all on the representation of the petitioner and if at all, according to the respondents, there is a decision, that decision is not in accordance with law. Therefore, learned 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 162 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondents are required to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of contempt of Courts Act. It is further submitted tht filing of such false affidavit stating therein that the representation is decided also amounts to contempt/ disobedience of directions of this Court which was on the basis of statement made by the counsel for the Respondents. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. In my opinion, the affidavit has been filed by the concerned officer stating therein that representation of the petitioner has been decided. From perusal of the order of Division Bench, it appears that there are no specific directions in which manner representation of the petitioner was required to be decided by the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 162 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders. appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. authority. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, minimum expectation of the litigant is that, such representation should be decided by following principles of natural justice. In the facts of the present case, since Respondents have filed affidavit stating that representation of the petitioner has been decided, if the petitioner is not satisfied with such decision, the petitioner can revive the writ petition No.6772 of 2009 or challenge such decision of the respondent authorities before appropriate forum as available under law. However, nothing further survives in this contempt petition. The same stands disposed of. Notice stands discharged. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] Dated:29/09/2011. ans/162