1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.59 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.169 OF 2009 (D). (LALIT BHAURAO LONARE...Vs..SMT. GUNJAN KINHU.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.R.Ingole, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JUNE 19, 2009. 1. By order dated 21st January, 2009 this Court permitted the petitioner to make representation to Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha within a period of two weeks from 21st January, 2009. The Court further observed that it expect the Chief Executive Officer to dispose of the same in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, after following the principles of natural justice, within a period of six weeks thereafter. With this direction the petition was disposed of. 2 2. The petitioner claims to have made a representation in pursuance of this order on 2nd February, 2009. He states that he was called to remain present before the Chief Executive Officer on 23rd March, 2009 and which was communicated to the petitioner on 17th March, 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. First that the decision, on his representation, was not taken within six weeks from the date of its filing i.e. 2nd February, 2009. This six weeks’ period was over on 9th March, 2009. The second grievance is that the Chief Executive Officer was directed to dispose of the representation in accordance with law and procedure applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the decision stating that it is against the provisions of law and the Government Resolutions that are applicable. 3. As to the first aspect, it has to be observed that submissions/reply on behalf of the respondent shows as to why the order could not be passed within the time limit. Reference was made to the parliamentary elections and end of the financial year. It cannot be said that these reasons are not genuine or that there was such inordinate delay on the 3 part of the respondent as would indicate scant regard to the time limit fixed by the Court. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction for punishment for contempt only because there has been some delay in deciding the representation. 4. As to the grievance that the representation was not decided according to law or applicable procedure, it cannot be gone into the present proceedings, since it would amount to usurping jurisdiction of the Division Bench which alone can examine correctness or otherwise of the decision taken. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. JUDGE RR.