1 cp283.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 283 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 1989 Shaligram Harchand Patil, Age: 73 years, Occ: Retired Servant, R/o. 11, Ganesh Nagar, Zilla Peth, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner and having its Office at Jalgaon Dist. Jalgaon & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mrs. A.S. Rasal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011 PER COURT : This Contempt Petition alleges the disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 30-09-2008 in Writ Petition No. 284 of 1989. Para-2 of the Division Bench order reads thus : 2 cp283.09 "2. We accordingly permit the petitioner to withdraw this petition and dismiss the petition as withdrawn while directing the respondents to decide the pending representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Rule discharged." 2. It is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the representation of the petitioner has not been decided within four months from the date of passing of the order by the Division Bench of this Court. Though there was specific time limit stipulated for deciding the representation, the respondents have not decided the same within time. Learned Counsel further submits that it was expected from the authority that after following the proper procedure and after having all documents necessary to decide the representation, the respondents will decide the 3 cp283.09 representation. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Page 19 of the compilation in which the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon has observed that the documents were not traceable and available. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, inspite of not having relevant and necessary documents for proper decision on representation, the representation came to be decided hurriedly just to complete the formality of complying the directions of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the decision taken by the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon is not in accordance with law. . In the alternate, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, if this Court is not convinced to punish the respondents – alleged contemnors, in that case, the petitioner may be 4 cp283.09 allowed to withdraw the contempt petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings to challenge the order dated 31-08-2009 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 invited my attention to Para-8 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 and submitted that the order of the Division Bench has been complied with. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to Para-6 of the affidavit in reply and submitted that for delay in deciding the representation, respondent No.1 has tendered unconditional apology and therefore, this Court may take lenient view and dispose of the contempt petition. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1 and in particular Para-6 and 8 of 5 cp283.09 the said affidavit in reply. It is true that the representation of the petitioner has not been decided by respondent No.1 within four months as directed by the Division Bench of this Court. To some extent, it is also true that the decision taken by the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon is without having certain relevant documents as observed by him in his judgment. However, whether the decision taken by the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon is correct or not, cannot be examined in the Contempt Petition. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has brought to the notice of this Court that the representation of the petitioner has been finally decided. Since unconditional apology is tendered by respondent No.1 in affidavit in reply for not complying the order within four months from the date of passing of the order by the Division Bench, in my opinion, such unconditional apology can be accepted. However, I find some substance 6 cp283.09 in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the decision taken by the Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon is in absence of certain relevant material/documents. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision or manner in which said decision has been taken, the petitioner is free to take appropriate remedy. Therefore, in my opinion, the Contempt Petition does not require any further consideration. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUN11