( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4988 OF 2010 Ramdas s/o. Kusaba Chavan .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 27.09.2010 P.C. :- 1. This Contempt Petition alleges disobedience of order dated 10th June, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 4988 of 2010. This Court on 17th August, 2010 issued notice to the respondents. Pursuant to notice, one Mr. Sanjay Pandurang Sasane, working as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ashti, Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed, has filed affidavit-in-reply. Para 5 of said affidavit in reply reads thus :- ( 2 ) “I say and submit that, the proposal/representation /complaint has been decided by this deponent well within the limitation as per the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, but inadvertently the said decision is not communicated to the petitioner from the office of this deponent and it was communicated to the Registry of this Hon’ble Court, however, the said order has been communicated to the petitioner on 25.8.2010. Therefore, there is no violation of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.” . Copy of the decision taken by the respondents is also annexed with reply at Exh. R-1 collectively. 2. Considering the prayer in the Contempt Petition and order passed by the learned Division Bench on 10th June, 2010, in Writ Petition No. 4988 of 2010, it appears to me that the order of the Division Bench in said Writ Petition has been complied with by the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that order at Exh. R-1 is passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ashti, behind back of the petitioner, without hearing the petitioner and without taking into consideration the contentions of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that Exh. ( 3 ) R-1 i.e. the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, is without having any date. 4. Taking into consideration the averments in the Contempt Petition and affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents, I do not think that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by learned Division Bench on 10th June, 2010, in Writ Petition No. 4988 of 2010. The Contempt Petition stands dismissed. 5. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision of the respondents which is place at Exh R-1 along with affidavit-in-reply, by way of appropriate proceedings. [S.S. SHINDE,J.] snk/2010/SEP10/cp292.10