1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 221 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1184 OF 2008 Shri. Dnyaneshwar Ramchandra Pokale ...Petitioner Verus Mr.Narayan T.Rane and Ors. ........Respondents Mr.Suresh M.Sabrad,adv.for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 25 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. This petition is filed alleging that the respondents i.e. the Minister for Revenue & Forest, Government of Maharashtra and the Collector, Pune have committed contempt by not complying with the order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1184 of 2008. 2. The petitioner had participated in the auction bid held for the year 2006- 2007 for excavating sand from the river bed of Mula-Mutha at Pune. He was successful in his bid being accepted by the government. He deposited the entire amount as per the direction of the government. However, he was unable to excavate the sand for the reason of lack of approach road to the site of excavation and certain 2 other personal difficulties. Hence, he made several representations to the Government for grant of alternate site, the last representation being dated 1st September, 2007. When the Government failed to respond to the representations, he filed Writ Petition No. 1184 of 2008. That Writ Petition was disposed off by the order 22nd February, 2008 directing the Government to consider the representation dated 1st September, 2007 made by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner was directed to communicate the order to respondent no.1. The petitioner communicated the order to respondent no.1 by his application dated 4th March 2009. Thereafter despite the expiry of the period of 8 weeks, respondent no.1 failed to communicate the order. Hence, the contempt petition. 3. Mr.Sonawane, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents states that the respondents have considered the representations made by the petitioner and rejected the request made therein. The rejection of the representation is communicated to the applicants by the letter dated 2nd July, 2008. With this order and communication, according to him, the order dated 22nd February, 2008 stands duly complied with. 4. Mr.Sabrad, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 2nd July, 2008 cannot be said to be compliance, since the order is not on the representation dated 1st September, 2008. Perusal of the intimation dated 2nd July, 2008 shows that what has been considered by respondent no.1 is representations 3 dated 3rd July 2007 and 16th June, 2007. There is no reference therein to representation dated 1st September, 2007. All the three representations i.e. representation dated 16th June 2007, 3rd July 2007 and 1st September, 2007 are available for perusal of the court from the record produced by the respondents. It is seen that all the three representations are identical. In the circumstances, though the letter dated 1st September, 2008 of the petitioner has not been specifically referred to in the intimation dated 2nd July, 2008 it cannot be said that the petitioners' representation as regards the issue involved stands unattended. Therefore, it must be held that the order 22nd February, 2008 has been sufficiently complied with by the respondents, though belatedly. There has been some delay on the part of the respondents in considering the representations. However, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed violation of the order dated 22nd February, 2008. Hence the order. 5. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties to bear their own costs. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]