ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 13.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 147 of 2014. 2. The aforesaid Writ Petition was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation seeking directions against respondent no. 2 in the petition, i.e. Development Commissioner, Gujarat State, to pass appropriate orders under Section 253 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”) after holding due inquiry and after examining the necessary record. 3. Section 253 of the Act empowers the competent authority to order super-session or dissolution of the Panchayat for default. The said Writ Petition (PIL) was disposed of with the following directions; “7. In view of the aforesaid fact situation, we find that the following directions would meet with the ends of justice- (a) The District Development Officer shall examine the matter in light of the provisions of section 253 of the Act and if he is of the opinion that there is persistent default in performance of duty by the members of the gram panchayat, he may make appropriate report to the Development Commissioner. Such exercise shall be completed by him within a period of one month from the receipt of the order. (b) The District Development Officer while considering the matter for submission of report shall also take into consideration the inquiry by the committee for any financial loss caused to the public exchequer and he shall also examine as to whether in addition to the report under section 253 of the Act, any further action is required to be taken in accordance with law against the office bearers of the gram panchayat or not. (c) After the report is submitted by the District Development Officer to the Development Commissioner, if any, the appropriate action shall be taken by the Development Commissioner within a period of two months from the receipt of such report. (c) After the report is submitted by the District Development Officer to the Development Commissioner, if any, the appropriate action shall be taken by the Development Commissioner within a period of two months from the receipt of such report. (d) It is observed that in the event any show cause notice is issued for dissolution of the gram panchayat under section 253 of the Act by the Development Commissioner, the rights and contentions of the affected members of the gram panchayat shall remain open and the matter shall be examined independently and in accordance with law by the Development Commissioner and appropriate orders shall be passed. 8. The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.” 4. A reading of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court makes it clear that direction was issued to the District Development Officer to examine the matter in light of the provisions of Section 253 of the Act and if he is of the opinion that there is persistent default in the performance of duties by the Members of the Gram Panchayat, he has to submit a Report to the Development Commissioner. Further direction was issued that after submission of Report by the District Development Officer, if any further action is required to be taken, the Development Commissioner shall take appropriate action within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such Report. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. 6. In this application, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in spite of specific directions to the District Development Officer to submit Report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, no Report was submitted to the Development Commissioner. Further, it is submitted that even the Development Commissioner has not taken any action as per the directions issued by this Court. 7. The District Development Officer, Surat District Panchayat, Surat has filed affidavit-in-reply. Further, it is submitted that even the Development Commissioner has not taken any action as per the directions issued by this Court. 7. The District Development Officer, Surat District Panchayat, Surat has filed affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-reply, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that one Babubhai T. Chaudhary, Sarpanch of Surali Gram Panchayat was issued show-cause Notice under the provisions of Section 57(1) of the Act on 24.02.2015 and after hearing him, he was removed from the Post of Sarpanch by order dated 24.07.2015 by the District Development Officer. It is further stated that the matter was carried in appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, by order dated 24.10.2016, partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the competent authority, pursuant to which, fresh show-cause Notice dated 16.11.2016 was issued. In the reply-affidavit, it is further stated that earlier the District Development Officer had submitted a Report on 24.02.2015 to the Development Commissioner opining that it was not a fit case to take action u/s. 253 of the Act. It is further stated that thereafter, the deponent submitted a Report dated 24.11.2016 to the Development Commissioner opining that it is not a fit case to undertake action u/s.253 of the Act. A copy of the said Report is also placed on record. In the affidavit-in-reply, the District Development Officer has also tendered unconditional apology for the delay in submitting Report in terms of the directions issued by this Court. 8. Though it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that both the respondents have violated the directions of this Court but, insofar as the District Development Officer is concerned, direction was issued to examine the allegations made against the concerned Gram Panchayat and to submit a Report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order. It appears that before the passing of the order dated 13.10.2015 by this Court, earlier, there was a Report dated 24.02.2015 of the then District Development Officer submitted to the Development Commissioner opining that it was not a fit case to undertake action u/s.253 of the Act. Even after orders were passed by this Court on 13.10.2015 in similar lines, further Report was sent opining that it is not a fit case to take action u/s.253 of the Act. Even after orders were passed by this Court on 13.10.2015 in similar lines, further Report was sent opining that it is not a fit case to take action u/s.253 of the Act. It is true that Report was not sent within the stipulated time but, in view of the explanation offered in the affidavit-in-reply, we are inclined to accept the same. So far as the Development Commissioner is concerned, in absence of any Report recommending dissolution or super-session of the Gram Panchayat u/s.253 of the Act, no further action was required to be taken by him. 9. In above view of the matter we are of the view that there is no deliberate or intentional violation of the directions of this Court by the respondents herein attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.