cp76.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 76 OF 2011 Kamalbai w/o Nawalkdas Bairagi & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent no. 1. WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2011 Natthu s/o Maroti Wankhede .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, AGP for respondent no. 1. cp76.11 2 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 78 OF 2011 Suresh Bhagwan Mahajan ( Deceased through LRs ) .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent no 1. WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 79 OF 2011 Gangaram s/o Dagdu Chaudhari & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent no. 1. cp76.11 3 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2011 Madhav s/o Prakash Nagrale .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent no. 1. === CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 9 th MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1 Petitioners contend that the action of respondent no. 2 – Deputy Conservator of Forest, Yawal, of issuance of show cause notices to the petitioners calling upon them to attend the office of respondent no. 2 on 22-2-2011 at 11.30 pm, amounts to willful dis-obedience of the order passed by this court. It is contended that this court has entertained the writ petitions presented by respective petitioners and has also granted interim relief i.e. stay to the execution, implementation and operation of the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dt. 17-8-2010. cp76.11 4 2 Mr. Ghatge, learned AGP appearing for the State has presented affidavit in reply sworn by respondent no. 2. Copy of communication issued by respondent no. 2 on 1-3-2011 is annexed to the affidavit in reply. Respondent no.2 in his communication referred above has informed the respective petitioners that the show cause notices in question are being withdrawn. It is also further stated in the communication that issuance of show cause notice was an inadvertent act. The concerned respondent has tendered an unconditional apology for his act of issuance of impugned show cause notices to respective respondents. The unconditional apology tendered by respondent no. 2 by presenting affidavit in reply, in each of the petitions, is accepted. In view of withdrawal of the impugned show cause notices, contempt petitions need not be entertained and the same are disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb