1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 269 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1050 OF 2009 Sharda w/o Rajendra Gaikwad and others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Ramesh Trimbak Kayande and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. U.B. Bondar, advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 2 The Division Bench of this Court on 2.4.2009 had disposed of the writ petition No. 1050 of 2009 with following directions;- “i) The petitioners shall prefer a representation for rental compensation before the respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today 2 ii) The respondent No.3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and decide the application made by the petitioners within a period of three months from the receipt of the application.” 3 There is no dispute that the said order has been complied with by the respondent No.3. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the same is not complied with within the period as stipulated in the order i.e. 2.4.2009. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in spite of the directions given by the Collector, the added respondent No.2 i.e. Suresh Raut, Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Beed, District Beed has not paid the amount of rental compensation to the petitioners. 4 Learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit in reply and more particularly annexure R-2 to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.1. In para 3 of the reply, the respondent No.1 has tendered unconditional apology. In para 7 of the said reply, it is stated that the order dated 2.4.2009 passed in writ petition No. 1050 of 2009 is complied on 14.9.2009 wherein the Collector, Beed directed to acquiring body to pay the rental compensation within one month from the date of order. It is no doubt true that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.4.2009 is not complied with within stipulated period of three months from the date of order. However, in 3 para 3 the affaint has tendered unconditional apology. Taking into consideration the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent No.1 and the order passed by the Collector, Beed on 14.7.2009, in my considered view, there is no deliberate attempt to violate the directions or willful disobedience of the order dated 2.4.2009, on the part of the respondents. The fact remains that the direction/order dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 1050 of 2009 has been complied with by the respondents. 5 In this view of the matter, nothing remains to be decided in this contempt petition. The contention, which is raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has not followed the directions given by the Collector by order dated 4.9.2009, is a different matter and same cannot be looked into in this contempt petition. 6 In the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, contempt petition fails and the same stands dismissed summarily. Contempt notice issued to the respondents is discharged. However, it will be open for the petitioners, in case they are not satisfied with the order of the Collector or aggrieved by the inaction of respondents No.2, to take appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum, if so advised. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 4