1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 200 of 2009 in Writ Petitiion No. 1794 of 2009 (D) (Dilip Prabhakar Rajkarne and others ..vs.. N.I.T., Nagpur thru. Its Chairman) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. P.V.Vaidya, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. S.K.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent C ORAM : Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. DATED : 18th February, 2010. The respondent has filed affidavit in reply stating that it has served notices for demolition during the period 31st December, 2009 to 4th January, 2010 to various persons by way of initiation of action under Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments Act, 2001. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the order dated 28th April, 2009, which is alleged to have been violated by the respondent, speaks only of initiation of action contemplated under Section 7(2) in accordance with the scheme of the said provision in the absence of any legal impediment in doing so issuance of notices would amount to compliance of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that issuance of notices to the occupants of the unauthorized constructions will not amount to taking of action under Section 7(2) of 2 the Act because the action contemplated thereunder is of demolition of the structures. However,s in view of issuance of notices, the learned counsel for petitioners at this stage does not press the petition and seeks liberty to file the petition in the event the respondent do not pursue the notices. Liberty is accordingly granted. Contempt Petition is disposed of. JUDGE. Diwale