1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.76 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2009(D) (MRS. PRABHATAI VIJAY DHORE..Vs.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.D.Harode, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Anoop Parihar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri B.M.Lonare, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 09, 2009. 1. The petitioner complains of disobedience of order passed by this Court on 18th March, 2009 in Writ Petition No.1145 of 2009, which reads as under : “Heard Shri Harode, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mujumdar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Looking to the cause of action involved in the petition, which pertains to change of spot where originally respondents planned to construct water storage tank as well as other related problems, we dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to canvass his grievance before the Collector by filing representation within a period of fifteen days from today. If such representation is made, we direct the collector to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. Copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties.” 2 2. On behalf of respondent No.7 a submission has been filed stating that respondent No.7 has passed appropriate orders on 14th May, 2009 after receipt of representation of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order was passed on application for disqualification of non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 14(1)(g) read with Section 16(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act and has nothing to do with the representation which was filed in pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 18th March, 2009. He states that even if it is taken that by an order dated 14th May, 2009 a dispute regarding change of spot of well has been decided, it does not follow that other related problems, which had been raised in the petition, have been addressed by respondent No.7. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader points out that order dated 14th May, 2009 takes care of the grievance which had been raised by the petitioner. The petitioner’s grievance that he was not heard on his representation is not correct since he points out that the petitioner had also sought an adjournment in these proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was in the proceedings for disqualification and not on his representation. 4. Now, it would have been ideal if respondent No. 7 started two separate proceedings and decided the same separately, but this does not vitiate the orders if respondent 3 No.7 has, in his own wisdom, dealt with the causes of the parties in the order dated 14th May, 2009. Respondent No.7 has specifically mentioned that the application for disqualification was supplementary to the application dated 23rd March, 2009, which was the representation made in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court on 18th March, 2009. If the petitioner has any grievance about the order passed on 14th May, 2009, his remedies would lie elsewhere. It cannot be said that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in not deciding the representation filed by the petitioner. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.