1 CP NO.237/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.237 OF 2005 in WRIT PETITION NO.6078 of 2004 Sayyad Taherulla s/o Sayyad Vikayatulla - PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SV Kurundkar, Addl.GP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 21st DECEMBER,2010. PER COURT: 1) Counsel for the petitioner called, absent. 2) The grievance of the petitioner is, he was a conductor with the MSRTC, due to his ill- health, remained absent and was declared medically unfit for the said post and consequently terminated from service. The petitioner had made the representations, then he filed Writ Petition no.1284/1994. On 25th September, 2002, the respondent no.2 authorities were directed to consider and decide the 2 CP NO.237/2005 petitioner’s representation on its own merits sympathetically within a period of three months. Thereafter by further directions, in another Writ Petition No.6078/2004, following order was passed in paragraph 3, which reads as under, - “3. By way of an interim order, we direct the Respondent no.2 – MSRTC Corporation to consider the representation made by the petitioner, in tune with the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, on the basis of which writ petition No. 1284/1994 came to be disposed off by this Court, by order dated 25.9.2002. The decision shall be taken within a period of four weeks from today. Compliance report be submitted.” 3) The grievance of the petitioner is, in spite of the directions, his representation is not heard and decided. There is nothing to demonstrate that there is any slackness on the part of the respondents/authorities in attending the representation of the petitioner. 4) Contempt Petition lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/