IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT CONTEMPT CONTEMPT PETITION NO.428 OF 2006. PETITION NO.428 OF 2006. PETITION NO.428 OF 2006. Chavan Baliram Appaso. ... Petitioner. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents. Shri Gajanan M.Savagave for the Petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardoz, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 13th June, 2007. : 13th June, 2007. : 13th June, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. By order dated 11th October 2006 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the 2nd to 4th Respondent in the Writ Petition were directed to decide the representation dated 4th September 2006 made by the Petitioner within a the period of one month from that date. There is an affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri P.M.Parab, Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Pune in which it is stated that in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench after hearing the concerned parties, an order has been passed on 10th January 2007. He has tendered an unconditional apology on account of delay in complying with the order of the Division Bench. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply, he has set out the reasons for the delay. 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits : 2 : 2 : 2 : that the order passed on 10th January 2007 is erroneous. However, this aspect cannot be considered in the Contempt Petition, the Petitioner will have to adopt appropriate remedy in that behalf. 4. In view of the apology tendered and in view of the compliance with the order of the Division Bench, no further action is required to be taken against the contemnors. Accordingly notice issued to the contemnor is discharged. Subject to what is stated above, the contempt petition is disposed of. Judge. Judge. Judge.