Sandhay Pandharinath Wakekar v. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prishad, Amravati

CP278-15 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.278/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1518/2014 (D) (SANDHYA PANDHARINATH WAKEKAR VERSUS SUNIL PATIL, THE C.E.O., Z.P., AMRAVATI) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Y.P. Kaslikar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.M. Kale, counsel for the respondent.

CORAM : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 11 , 2016.

By this contempt petition, the petitioner had sought an action against the respondent for willful disobedience of the order directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame.

Shri Kale, the learned counsel for the respondent, states that the order of which the contempt is alleged is duly complied with and the decision on the representation of the petitioner is conveyed to the petitioner.

Shri Kaslikar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent.

In view of the aforesaid, the contempt petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE APTE