1 cp207.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 207 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7159 OF 2010 [Gramvikas Bahu-Uddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Islampur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondents. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 PER COURT : Heard. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the proposal of the petitioner is decided after issuing the notice in this contempt petition. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the State tendered affidavit in reply across the bar and 2 cp207.11 submitted that, the order of the Division Bench of this Court of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been complied with. 3. It is not in dispute that the order of the Division Bench of which disobedience has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been complied with. It is true that, the said order is complied with after issuance of the notice by the Court in this contempt petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Poddar vs. Dhani Ram and others, reported in (2002) 1 S.C.C. 766 taken a view that even if the order is complied after notices are issued in the contempt proceedings, the Court seizes with the contempt jurisdiction should adjudicate the said contempt proceedings with judicial grace and magnanimity. 3 cp207.11 4. In the light of aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the order of the Division Bench has been complied with, in my opinion, nothing further survives to be considered in this contempt petition. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice stands discharged. . It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision on his rejection of proposal, he can file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Forum, as available in law. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/AUG11