1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.232 OF 2009 Pravin Damodar Zemse .... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Milind Parab i/by M/s.Milind Parab & Associates, for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.I.Patel, A.G.P., for the respondent-State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 16-04-2009 has not been complied with. The Division Bench on 16-04-2009 passed following order. “It appears that the petitioner was able to obtain a stay of notice inviting offers against the grant of Retail Kerosene Sale Licence to somebody else. The stay has not been granted to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the stay was vacated behind his back. The petitioner may approach the concerned authorities with his grievance. If any such grievance is made to the authorities, they shall decide it in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of. 2. On the basis of the said order, the grievance of the petitioner has been considered by the Minister of Food & Civil Supplies, on 2 13-08-2009, by which the application of the present petitioner was partly allowed. In my view, on the basis of the order of the Division Bench, the concerned Minister has already decided the representation by considering the grievance of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this contempt petition is not required to be dealt with. Even otherwise, the Division Bench has not given any specific time limit to decide the grievance of the petitioner if any. The contempt petition is disposed of in view of the decision taken by the Minister of the concerned Department. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)