cp191.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2008 Deepak Suryakant Peddawad .. PETITIONER VERSUS Bramhanand, Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.G. Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.N. Pagare, advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Ajay Deshpande advocate holding for Mr. S.G. Sangle, advocate for respondent no. 5. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 17 th MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 This court while disposing of Writ Petition no. 2349/2007 directed respondent no. 5 to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner and transmitted to it again by respondent no. 6, within two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this court, in accordance with law. Grievance is made that the directions issued by this court on 14-12-2007 have not been complied with. Mr. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 cp191.09 2 and 2 pointed out that the representation tendered by the petitioner has been dealt with and decided by the concerned respondent and the order has been passed on 3 rd April 2008 disapproving the proposal. Grievance is made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 6 was supposed to forward the original proposal. Allegations are made in the affidavit filed alongwith the petition in respect of failure to forward the proposal by the concerned respondent. One of the reasons recorded while turning down the proposal by respondent no. 5 on 3 rd April 2008 is non-receipt of original set of papers from the concerned respondent. It is contended that in these circumstances, action needs to be taken against respondent nos. 5 and 6 for willful disobedience of the order passed by this court. 2 As has been recorded above, respondent no. 5 (in the writ petition) has considered the representation and rendered his decision disapproving the proposal on 3 rd April 2008. Respondent no. 6 has also presented affidavit in reply wherein he has stated that the allegations made in the affidavit in reply tendered alongwith contempt petition were also part of the writ petition presented to the court. However, this court overlooked the allegations and proceeded to issue directions to respondent no. 5. This court cp191.09 3 dealing with contempt petition need not go into the allegations levelled by the petitioner and refuted by the concerned respondent. It would be open for the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of the order passed by respondent no. 5 (in writ petition). I do not find that there is any willful disobedience or non-observance of the directions issued by this court on 14-12-2007 at the hands of respondent no. 5 (in the writ petition). Petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected. 3 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb