C.P.No.204 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.204 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5551 OF 2010 Pandhari Devaba Waghmare ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr K.T.Shirurkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr A.S.Deshpande, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 9th November 2011 PER COURT Heard. 2. On 23rd September 2010, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, the Division Bench permitted him to make a representation to respondent No.2 – University and in the event of such representation being made, to be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, earlier the Registrar had indeed prepared a proposal and it was placed before the University Council, as could be seen at page 36 (Exh.E) and according to him the present Registrar has no authority under the law to take decision for himself and consequently, the orders of this Court to decide the representation remained unattended. C.P.No.204 of 2011 2 4. The position that has been canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the record. At page 44, below Exh.X is a communication dated 28.10.2010 issued by the University addressed to the Associate Dean (respondent No.3). The references indicated that matter was dealt with at all the possible and the competent levels and thereafter, based on the scheme and the decision, the request for extending age of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years for the purposes of retirement, could not be considered. This has been so communicated by order dated 28.10.2010. I do not see that the directions of this Court dated 23.9.2010 are not yet complied with. Contempt Petition lacs merit. Hence, dismissed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) (vvr/204.11cp)