IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 553 OF 2011 MRS. CELLY QUADROS E COUTINHO., ... Petitioner Versus THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. Bandodkar, Addl. Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 15th December, 2011 P.C. Affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Bandodkar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The above contempt petition has been filed on the ground that the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.09.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 553 of 2011. It is alleged by the petitioner that despite of the directions to consider the representation of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the said order no such decision was taken by the respondents. It is further pointed out that instead of taking a decision, by letter dated 07.10.2011 addressed to the Principal of the Government College of Arts, Sanquelim Goa, the respondents deferred the decision on the said representation. 4. The respondents after receiving notice in the Petition filed their affidavit in reply. Along with the affidavit in reply, the respondents have also produced a copy of the order passed on the said representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2011. The respondents also at para 19 of their affidavit in reply have tendered their unconditional apology for not complying the order within the specified time. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that a decision has been taken with regard to the representation made by the petitioner and also taking note of the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent no.2 which apology is accepted, I find that there is no reason to further initiate any contempt proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents upon instructions has pointed out that the respondents shall not commit such lapses in future. The petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the orders passed by the respondents on the representation, if so advised in accordance with law. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. at*