1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.25 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6054 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Mrs.S.D.Tambar-Dhumal, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.G.Shelke, learned AGP for respondent State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for petitioner, and learned AGP for State. The alleged contempt petition is filed by the petitioner, as there is violation at the hands of respondents about non-compliance of directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 6054/2009, dated 10/09/2009. While disposing the said writ petition, directions were given by the Division Bench of this Court that since the proposal dated 08/03/2008 of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondents, we deem it appropriate to 2 decide this petition finally at this stage and accordingly direct respondent no.1 to decide the pending proposal of the petitioner in accordance with Law within the period of 8 weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. It appears that after the contempt petition was filed, notices were issued on the respondents and in response to the said notices, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply of Shri.Santosh Namdeo Patil, the Deputy Director of Education, Nashik Division Nashik on 08/04/2010. Alongwith this affidavit, the decision taken by the State Government through Education Ministry, wherein the proposal/representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. It appears that the date of this order is 29/03/2009, when the order was passed by this Court to decide the pending proposal on 10/09/2009. It appears that there is some typographical error in the date of finalizing the proposal as the outward stamp shows that the order was dispatched from the office of Deputy Director of Education on 01/04/2010. 3 Only point for consideration as urged by the counsel for petitioner is that, even though the order was complied by the respondents, but not as per the directions of Division Bench of this Court. For this purpose, the affidavit in reply again require to be considered as in para no.2 of the affidavit in reply, the deponent has tendered unconditional apology for the delay caused on behalf of the Department to take the decision as per the directions of this Court. As the unconditional apology is tendered, it is accepted, and the proceeding stands disposed of accordingly. Notice against respondents stands discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2010/cp25-10