Shrimant Bapurao Kharbad And Others v. Sambhaji Kadu Patil The Sugar Commisioner Pune

920.18cp (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 920 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14138 OF 2017 1.

Shrimant Bapurao Kharbad, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., 2.

Machindra Dhondiba Shimple, Age: 61 years, Occ: Agri., 3.

Pandurang Bajirao Jadhav, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agri., All R/o. Yousuf Wadgaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Sambhaji Kadu Patil, The Sugar Commissioner, Sadhu Waswani Chowk, Near Vidhan Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Central Building, Pune ..RESPONDENT Mr H.P. Jadhav, Advocate for petitioners;

Mr K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent sole CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 8th NOVEMBER, 2019 ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

2.

In response to the simple notice issued by this Court vide order dated 21st December, 2018, an affidavit in reply is filed on behalf

920.18cp (2) of respondent No. 1 through Mr. Sambhaji Kadu Patil, retired as Commissioner of Sugar, M.S. Pune.

3.

Learned A.G.P. invited our attention to the annexure-R-1 of the affidavit in reply to submit that in compliance of the order of this Court, application/representation submitted by the petitioners with the Commissioner of Sugar is decided by the order dated 21st February, 2019. The Commissioner of Sugar directed the recovery of amount due and payable to the petitioners as balance amount against F.R.P. as arrears of land revenue and further directed that the petitioners would be entitled for interest for delayed payment. 4.

Learned A.G.P., on instructions, submits that though there is delay in passing the order but for administrative difficulties, such as, receiving report from lower authorities belatedly, the authority was unable to decide the representation within stipulated period. It is also submitted by learned A.G.P. that delay in decision is unintentional and the deponent has tendered unconditional apology for the delay. 5.

By accepting unconditional apology and in view of the fact that the order of this Court is now complied with and the representation is decided, the contempt petition is disposed of. (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.) Tupe