FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.: 267 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 8062 OF 2006 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Mukhedkar for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel Mr. Mukhedkar has pointed out order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 9th February, 2007 in writ petition No.8062 of 2006. Learned Division Bench had directed the Tahsildar to decide two representations of the Petitioners dated 9th September, 2005 and 1st March, 2006 within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order. Grievance raised by learned counsel Mr. Mukhedkar pertains to the manner in which the representations have been decided. He points out page 35 of the compilation Anexure-P-3 representation of Asaram, deceased father of the Petitioner No.1 dated 1st March, 2006. Another representation Annexure P-3 (page 37) dated 9th September, 2005 is also considered by me. These two representations have been decided by the Tahsildar. Exhibit C-2 (page 45) is the decision and/ or response by the Tahsildar, communicating deceased Asaram, father of the petitioner. Grievance raised is that the representation is not decided in its proper perspective. In my view, considering the directions given, it cannot be said that the representation has not FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. been decided by the Tahsildar, Aurangabad. Merits of the decision need not be examined in this contempt petition. In my view, the direction given by the learned Division Bench has been complied with, though belatedly, meaning thereby that not exactly within four weeks from the date of passing of the order by the learned Division Bench. No case is made out to show that the authority has committed contempt of the Court within the meaning of section 2 (b) of the Contempts of Courts Act. 2. Petition stands dismissed. No costs. 3. So far as merits of the decision, communication addressed by the Tahsildar to deceased Asaram is concerned, it may be a subject matter of independent proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law. Such liberty stands in favour of the petitioners. [S. B. DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:29.06.2009 ans/267