Maroti S/O Rukaram Pandekar And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, Dept. Of Irrigation Mantralaya Mumbai And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.376/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.435/2013 (D) Maroti s/o Tukaram Pandekar (Dead) through his L.R. Rajendra s/o Maroti Pandekar ...Versus...

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. A.R. Kulkarni, AGP for respondent no.1 Shri V.G. Palshikar, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 09.02.2016 By this contempt petition, the petitioner has sought action against the respondents for wilful disobedience of the direction to decide the representation within a period of six months.

Shri Palshikar, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 states, on instructions and by relying on a copy of the order dated 12.1.2016, that the decision on the representation of the petitioner is taken by the Collector, Amravati during the pendency of the contempt petition. It is stated that the delay in deciding the representation was not deliberate.

In view of the aforesaid statement, the contempt petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar