1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NOS.150/2009; 151/2009; 152/2009 & 153/2009. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Nagarsoge, Adv. h/for Mr. NL Jadhav, Adv. for Petitioner; Mr.DV Tele and VD Rakh, AGPs for State. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 21 st January, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) By directions dated 16th February, 2009, the Division Bench passed the following order in paragraph 2. “All these petitions can be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by all the petitioners within eight weeks from today.” 3) In the Affidavit in reply furnished by Collector, Beed, it is informed that pursuant to the directions, letters dated 6.4.2009 and 18.6.2009 were issued to all the Heads of the Department in Beed district to send demand of project affected person candidates to fill up the vacant posts of Project affected persons. The letter of the Collector 2 also specifies to this effect dated 18.6.2009. In the similarly placed situation the affidavit of Purushottam s/o Nanarao Patodkar, working as Deputy District Election Officer, Beed, indicates that a copy of the letter was also marked to the respective petitioners, which is annexed at Exhibit-R.1 to the affidavit in reply. It follows, that the Department has complied with the directions of this Court within time frame and consequently, I find there is no contempt of the order of this Court. 4) Consequently, the Contempt petitions lack merit, they are dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/cp150.09