Order 2506smc6.25 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4632/2021 WITH SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.6/2025. Ashraf Kayyum Shaikh -VERSUS- The Govt.of India and others. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Ms K.P. Wathore, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri N.S. Deshpande, DSGI for Respondent No.1. Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : JUNE 25, 2025. Heard. 2. The grievance sought to be canvassed in the present petition is to continue with his e-seva kendra for which a licence is issued in his favour by the office of the Collector, for managing the agency in question. 3. In that view of the matter, the major grievance raised in the petition is stated to have Rgd. 2025:BHC-NAG:6056-DB Order 2506smc6.25 2 been redressed. As a sequel of above, the contempt notice issued by this Court stands discharged. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions states that the office of the Collector, Amravati has permitted the petitioner to administer the agency in question for a period of two years from the date of allotment, however, when the cancellation on earlier occasion was ordered, the same was for a period of five years. 5. We hope and trust that the Collector shall be sensitive of the said issue, as the grant of permission on earlier occasion to administer e-seva kendra was for a period of five years. 6. In case occasion arises for the purpose of seeking extension, considering the very conduct of the petitioner, it shall be open for the Collector to deal with the request of extension keeping in mind the fact about grant of e-seva kendra for five years on earlier occasion. 7. In this background, and having regard to the observations made herein above, in our opinion Rgd. Order 2506smc6.25 3 the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of. 8. Needless to clarify that the orders impugned passed against the petitioner stands quashed and set aside, as the agency is allotted afresh in his favour. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.