1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 128 OF 2008 (Harishchandra s/o Late Shri P.N. Dalal vs. J.P. Dange, Principal Secy. & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 14, 2008. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nitin Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. The grievance is that the order dated 25.07.2008 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 3212 of 2007 has not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner's representation dated 28.3.2007 was not decided within the prescribed period of three months. The learned Government Pleader points out that the said direction was brought to the notice of the concerned officer i.e. Respondent No.4 – Bhalchandra Thakare, belatedly and immediately thereafter he has decided the representation. He files affidavit of Respondent No.4 on record in which Respondent No.4 has explained these facts and has also tendered unconditional apology. 2 Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel contends that the order admittedly has not been complied with. The perusal of record reveals that writ petition was disposed of on the very first date of listing, after request was made to the learned AGP to waive notice as only formal direction was required to be issued to decide the representation. In the circumstances, it is difficult to hold that there is any deliberate or willful disobedience to said order in the present facts. Moreover, Respondent No.4 has also tendered unconditional apology. Hence, no case is made out for interference in the matter in contempt jurisdiction. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision taken by Respondent No.4 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE *GS.